Reveling in Bleakness

by Guest Contributor SLB, originally published at PostBourgie

In grad school, I took an elective called Autobiografiction in Black, a course in first-person narratives illustrating a broad pastiche of Black life. The first novel we were asked to read was Sapphire’s Push. I read it in three days, growing more and more uncomfortable by the page. I had to take long, cleansing breaks after certain passages. Other times, I sat covering my mouth in disbelief at the central character’s myriad disfortunes. When the book finally ended, I wanted to hurl it across my apartment. My skin crawled for days and I felt betrayed by my professor. What possible reason could she have had for choosing this novel as the initial reading for her course?

Push is the story of Precious Jones, an obese and illiterate teen whose mother and father are sexually, physically, and emotionally abusing her. As a result of routine father-daughter incest, she is the mother of one child with Down’s Syndrome and is pregnant with a second. These horrifying occurrences are just the beginning of Precious’s troubles, but it’d behoove you to read the book to find out what else is going on.

Suffice it to say: Sapphire is relentless in her portrayal of this girl, who joins a literacy class and begins to slowly peek out from the cracks of her dark, shattered life and find a few rays of light.

People who love this book will tell you that it’s a triumphal story of hope in the face of brutality and despair. And it is. But for me, hope appeared too late in the work and retreated without a satisfying enough redemption for our heroine. I couldn’t stop mourning her abundance of tragedies, no matter what brief victories she won.

So when I found out Push was being adapted for the silver screen, I cringed at the prospect of revisiting Precious’s bleakly rendered world. I dreaded watching in technicolor all the awful things I’d imagined while reading. And I reeeally didn’t want to return to the hollowness that haunted the ending. What possible reason would Hollywood have for further dramatizing an existence as heinous as Precious’s?

It was certainly something to think about. Black American dramas have the tendency to pull their viewers into dark corners and assault them. The grittiest ripped-from-the-headlines realities and the woes so commonplace the news doesn’t bother covering them at all bogart their way into our fiction. Push will be no exception and I wasn’t sure if I should be pleased about that.

Then I found out Mo’Nique was gonna star as Precious’s mom and I thought, “Oh. It’s gonna be one of those movies.” I thought, “They’re gonna sanitize it, make it more watchable than it was readable.” Other casting news cropped up: Sherri Shepherd would be making an appearance, as would Lenny Kravitz and Mariah Carey. Then, word got around that Paula Patton would be Ms. Rain, Precious’s literacy teacher and guileless mentor. It began to sound like something that would air on VH-1 on a Sunday afternoon.

I worried.

Last weekend, director Lee Daniels finally unveiled his adaptation at Sundance, with newcomer Gabourey Sidibe as Precious and I checked Owen Glieberman’s review:

Push shows us how a young woman who is nothing but a thick, bruised wall of walking scar tissue slowly emerges, pulling herself out of her living hell, and Daniels demonstrates unflinching daring as a filmnmaker by going this deep, this far, this ruthlessly into the pathologies of rage and dependence that can still linger in the haunted closets of impoverished African-American life. Push is one of those films that make you think, “There but for the grace of God go I,” but it’s a potent and moving experience, because by the end you feel you’ve witnessed nothing less than the birth of a soul.

And then: Push swept the Sundance Film Festival Prizes. It won both the Audience and Grand Jury awards in the U.S. Dramatic Competition, as well as a Special Jury Prize for… Mo’Nique(!).

Something tells me I may have underestimated this flick—and its potential resonance. Something tells me that, no matter how many dark films about Black hardship emerge, there will always be room for one more. I suppose there are no stories our culture should cringe away from. There’s merit in them all, no matter how unimaginable.

Meanwhile, since Sundance was well underway when our 44th Prez was sworn in last Tuesday, the proceedings were saturated, for better or worse, with Obama shout-outs.

Said a possibly delusional, though probably well-intentioned Paula Patton:

I really believe the reaction we’ve gotten to this movie is a direct response to Obama being elected. I believe white guilt — whether it was right or wrong — dissipated. Now, screening this film for an audience that’s predominately white, they loved it. There was a white man there, 60 years old, you wouldn’t think he’d relate to any of us. He said, ‘I come to this festival all the time. I’ve seen maybe 75 films. This is the best one I’ve ever seen, and the only time I’ve cried in a movie.’ In that crowd in Salt Lake City, it felt like we were all one. I’ve dealt with racism in my way, and it was a healing experience to stand in front of that audience and be embraced, and loved. And I really believe that’s because we got over a major hump in America when we elected Barack. I don’t know if this movie would have played that well a year ago, or five years ago. I think it’s right on time.

These sentiments were tempered by her director, who opined during one of his acceptance speeches:

I think [this win] means there’s hope for people of color. Just because Obama’s president doesn’t necessarily mean it’s going to translate down to our world of cinema. And I think what it does is reiterate and strengthen this power of, Get yourself a freakin’ video camera. And you go out and tell your truth. That’s what I started doing as a kid, and I think inevitably, it led to this. It’s just so much hope.

Push has yet to find distribution, which means that no wide release date has been decided. But with all its accolades, it’s certain to hit theatres in the not-too-distant future.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Google Bookmarks
  • NewsVine
  • Current
  • email
  • Print

Trackbacks & Pings

  1. Tanglad on 28 May 2009 at 1:11 am

    Kinatay…

    Let me get this out of the way first. This is not a movie review. It is a review of movie reviews about Brillante Mendoza’s Kinatay. Spoilers follow, though the title pretty much tells you what you’re gonna get.

    Last weekend, Filipino dire…

  2. Kinatay at Racialicious - the intersection of race and pop culture on 02 Jun 2009 at 12:00 pm

    [...] acceptable. It’s quite telling that he ends his review with a plug for the movie Precious, which in other accounts is a story of an illiterate teen’s suffering through horrific sexual, physical, and emotional [...]

Comments

  1. Monie wrote:

    When I saw that Sherri Shepard and Mo’Nique and Mariah were both in this film I became a little worried too. Actually despite its success at Sundance I’m still a little worried. I suppose good actors are too expensive for independent films like this one?

    I look forward to seeing PUSH despite the cast. In a world where Black films are either thug movies, slapstick comedies or films that try to deliver some religious message, this film is very welcome.

    I hope PUSH does well at the box office, and then maybe we can see more Black films that are off the beaten path.

  2. Ugly Deaf Muslim Punk Gurl! wrote:

    I’ve been reading lots of good raves about “Push” on indie film blogs, but I had no idea what “Push was about.” The book sounds depressing as hell, though.

  3. cocolamala wrote:

    “I suppose there are no stories our culture should cringe away from. There’s merit in them all, no matter how unimaginable.”

    yes, but why it then that our media is so obsessed with the negative portrayals of black women and men? why should this story get the greenlight?

    where are the counterbalancing roles in movies starring black women who achieve success and satisfaction due to community/ parental guidance, love and care? where are any movies starring black women in positive roles this year? Okay, Cadillac Records, um Good Hair is coming out… oh, The Secret Life of Bees…anything else? …maybe The Family that Preys…

  4. Angel H. wrote:

    Is that a picture of Precious Jones or the actress portraying her?

  5. Eva wrote:

    I’d like to see this movie. I’ve been going to 12 step meetings for 20 years. There’s nothing, I mean nothing I haven’t heard.

    I hope it’s not sanitized though.

  6. SolShine7 wrote:

    I can’t wait to see this movie! The Oscar-winning The Departed was pretty bleak as well.

  7. Fiqah wrote:

    Cosign with author’s mixed feelings about film. The novel – like Sapphire herself – was just so…WHOA. Seriously, every page made you wince. I dunno, homey…

  8. Lola wrote:

    I can’t read things like this. They hurt to much, it is too personal.

  9. gatamala wrote:

    Her voice must be heard. Yet, I do know that gruesome tragedy wins awards. Maybe the Holocaust just doesn’t do it anymore.

    Because I’ve been around this site for awhile, I will admit that the photo up top made my chest tighten. I just don’t know. I just don’t.

    btw her name is Gabourey Sidibe

    http://www.jamati.com/online/film/fresh-talent-alert-gabourey-sidibe/

    It would be interesting to see if she gets any other roles. Or Mo’nique and Sherri (what!) for that matter.

  10. G.D. wrote:

    cocolamaya: that whole positive/negative thing you’re doing is *really* loaded.

    Why is ‘Cadillac Records’ a ‘positive’ film? Or the ‘Secret Life of Bees’? (You could argue that those films are about troubled drug addicts and mammies, respectively.) This is a dangerous rabbit hole to go down.

    I think that counterbalancing is overrated. If you buy the idea that unflattering film portrayals of the black character’s lives are distorted, doesn’t the same hold true for affirmative depictions?

  11. atlasien wrote:

    The movie looks very compelling.

    There are a ton of famous books and movies centering on women suffering horribly. In fact, the women suffering horribly are almost always white.

    I think the way race plays into it is… whose suffering matters more? Is the suffering meant to be understood as redemptive, noble, tragic, central, meaningful? Or is it just a prop? Or even exploited for comic effect?

    In a lot of movies, I think black women’s suffering is pushed off to the sidelines or used just to underline the experience of a white heroine. So I can see how a movie where that suffering is made absolutely central and really extreme could possibly represent a welcome break from a stereotype… even if it’s also incredibly depressing.

  12. yesand... wrote:

    I don’t know if I’m as worried about it being sanitized as I am about it black suffering being fetishized by a white audience, due to this “white guilt” that is (apparently) providing all the “hope” (money) to get these stories to the mainstream.

    Celebrity cameos can be powerful, if they are COMPLETELY out of character and good actors. I don’t want to se Mo’nique on that screen, I want to see the character she’s playing. (see Marlon Wayans in Requiem for a Dream)

    Slumdog Millionare. Push. I see a connection here. I am wondering if white people are watching these movies to get some kind of a payoff at the end, some kind of a catharsis that alleviates the weight of their guilt-ridden privilege, and that’s why they are loving these kinds of “poverty-pimping” productions that used to only be marketable to the black community. The actual residents of the slums in Mumbai rioted because of the title of Slumdog (because they are not dogs), which means that they probably didn’t like the film. I think this is going to be the same with Push (sans riots hopefully). There’s a reason white people don’t read black novels, because they tend to end like Invisible Man by Ralph Ellison. White people want the triumphant poor person of color, pulling themselves up by the bootstraps against all possible odds, and making it finally justified that all the other ones who don’t are at fault for their own soul-crushing poverty.

    For the black community, these kinds of narratives are for feeling a sense of collective struggle, a sense of identification in a world that seems hopeless. For (privileged) whites, it’s about living the fantasy of a “just world” that is independent of their behavior, which alleviates their guilt and justifies passivity and the status quo. This is why I am not so happy about all of this paternalistic coziness with the “black” struggle all of a sudden. It reeks of fetish, it reeks of self-serving smugness. It doesn’t really look like understanding to me.

    I predict a Native American “slumdog/push/pursuit of happyness” coming soon to theaters near you.

    In a world…where poor people keep themselves down, one soul stands up against all the odds of her heritage and genetic inferiority. One soul climbs up out of hell using the straps from her boots…

  13. G.D. wrote:

    cocomalay: also, if this book/film is about a desperately troubled child scratching some semblance of dignity out of her debasement with the help of an involved teacher, how does it *not* meet your criteria for ‘positivity’ (”… black women achiev[ing] success and satisfaction due to community/ parental guidance, love and care?”)

    Again, this ‘positive’/'negative’ shit is not cut and dried. Hell, I’d argue that it’s the most simplistic lens with which to gauge a film.

  14. Cara wrote:

    @ Angel H. – it’s a picture of Gabby, the actress playing Precious in the film.

    @SLB – Thanks so much for this post. I actually spoke to a couple of ppl who went to Sundance and they said the film received two standing ovations at their screening. I am really excited about this film b/c it’s not another Soul Plain, Madea Film (no offense TP), or First Sunday kind of film.

    The black/womyn’s struggle is not at center here, I believe it is “black/womyn’s survival.” In my opinion that is one (if not ‘the’) greatest legacy of African Americans – our survival. Take the good with the bad (even if it’s a lot of bad in Precious’ case) – we are survivors. And hopefully this film shows not a mere survival or resistance to her circumstances…but the way she starts to “live” and actually take control over her life.

    Sure, most ppl (and some blk ppl who are uncomfortable with sharing the “dirty” non-commercial side of racism) would rather see a more pleasant film. This film may not be a “Pursuit of Happiness,” “Dream Girls,” ”Coach Carter” fell-good type of movie – but sometimes (and more often than not) we need films that reflect reality, and deals with “real $h*t.” Reality doesn’t need a re-interpretation. I much prefer see this sort of honest portrayal of black reality, than a “Freedom Writers” or “Dangerous Minds” type deal; were the outsider (white savior) swoops in to save the “brown kinds from ruff backgrounds”; while we explore the turmoil and family conflict these “saviors” experience while sacrificing themselves to save the less fortunate… I don’t mean to be sarcastic or to down play the contributions of ‘all’ white educators in the inner-city, but I think you know what I mean…What about the kinds from ruff backgrounds? Let’s go home with THEM, let the story be about THEM and how they save themselves! She was molested….she’s a teenage mother….her child has down syndrome….she can’t read…..and her parents are @$$h013$ – but all is not “hopeless.” So what if she didn’t have the best start at life…it’s still her life! And hopefully this film illustrates Precious’ refusal to let her victimization define her or control her future.

    I am EXTREMELY excited about this film! And if I have to beg, borrow, or steal [I hope it doesn't come to that and that it will be distributed] I’ve got to experience this!

  15. Lisa J wrote:

    Sounds like something interesting to check out, and I think maybe, watching this might be less painful than reading since sometimes reading things can linger longer though seeing things sometimes flashes big images up in your head from time to time.

    I have one question of the author, if she reads our comments. Why was the actress delusional for saying that audiences might be more amendable because of the Obama-effect? I think she may have a point. I think electing President Obama, seeing his face and the faces of his family daily in a positive light, might make some white people more amenable to blacks in general and to think a bit more or rethink their ideas about blacks and their humanity. I’m not saying everything will be manna from heaven and it will be all kumbaya or anything but I don’t see why crediting the Obama factor as rubbing off a bit is crazy.

  16. Ariel wrote:

    “Something tells me that, no matter how many dark films about Black hardship emerge, there will always be room for one more.”

    This resonated with me. There will similarly never be too many Holocaust films. There can never be too many ways to express the stories of pain at the hands of others. We must remember. We must watch. We must learn. We must, because there but for the grace of God go we.

    It is painful, but it is truth. And, yes, I think there should be more (and more accurate) portrayals of the positive side of any experience….. but the desire to immerse ourselves in the best, brightest, and happiest should never diminish our ability to withstand both sides of the truth – even the pain.

  17. Kaonashi wrote:

    From what I’ve been hearing EVERYONE turned out a stellar performance. Unfortunately, the movie hasn’t found any distributors yet. Let’s hope that changes.

    I’m wondering how certain things are going to be depicted in the film, because that book was…harsh.

  18. Nina wrote:

    I’m torn. I’ve had a lot of struggles, though not on THAT level, and there is something to be said for illustrating graphically that no matter how ugly and unrelenting the hard times may be tht people CAN heal and overcome. “But my life is BAD, its beyond repair”, people say.
    Showing that even the worst life can sometimes be turned around, is something I think a lot of people in hopeless situations should see. And those who discount people, who look down on them and mock them, to understand what a person has been through can give some insight and maybe encourage empathy rather than judgement.

  19. Jamerican Muslimah wrote:

    @yesand, you took the words out of my mouth! Thank you!

  20. LaurynX wrote:

    I’m amazed at all the ppl (including author) who are moaning about how depressing this is. News Flash: Not everyone has a happy-go-lucky life. Just b/c someone has a very terrible story to tell, doesn’t mean it should not be told. It deserves to be told. This story and countless others…countless others.

  21. LaurynX wrote:

    And while I’m at it, I’m extremely happy about the presence of lesbian/gay characters as prominent and positive characters in the movie’s production and on film.

  22. Madge wrote:

    I’m thinking that this is just a replay of the “child-of-poverty-rises-to-her-potential” story that has been played in every race. I think the fact that she is black is just a change of scenery. These stories will probably resonate more with me (a kid from a poor, trailor park town) rather than an upper-middle class black family. Isn’t this really more about class rather than race? (Not to disclaim the argument that class and race are internally linked in our society, but I feel like this film is centered around the poverty-abuse link rather than the race issue.)

  23. SayNay wrote:

    @cocolamala I definitely agree that diversity of positive/negative images is an issue, especially across all communities of color, however, I wonder the extent to which those of us who are “privileged” within our own communities this is really an issue. Where whiteness and white experience through media is normalised. At least for me anyway, I rarely take negative depictions of whites as an imperative of all whites and can at times be more sensitive about how we are portrayed and interpreted because we are not afforded the same frequency or diversity of image.

    That being said I still feel like these stories need to be told in all communities because there are far too few films right now that are really challenging us mentally, morally, psychologically, etc.

  24. slb wrote:

    Angel H. – Just wanted to clarify that Precious Jones is a fictional character. I think Sapphire was once quoted as saying that Precious was a composite of many young women she’d known.

    But yeah, the story itself and the characters are fictional. Push isn’t based on a particular living person’s “true story.”

    I think that’s supposed to lend a universality to the tragic occurrences it details.

  25. ms world wrote:

    I read this book a long time ago. I was familiar with the poet & writer Sapphire. I know she doesn’t hold back but the book was brutal. I got it but damn it was depressing (especially the mother’s abuse).

    I don’t know if I want to see this film because I know it will be brutal if it is similar to the book.

  26. Nina wrote:

    hmmm…i am cautiously optimistic….I read the book many years ago and will probably re-read it before seeing the movie (movie makers alwasy seem to screw up inteh adaptation to screen process).

    Ariel, I agree that we must not forget those who have suffered but when you compare the number of movies with positive images of poc vs. the number of movies with negative ones it is troublesome that the negative imagery is what gets picked up constantly by mainstream media and hailed as brilliant. As exhibit A, many of Denzel’s roles pre-”Training Day” were overlooked but the minute he plays a bad ass he wins an Oscar. I still think America would rather see people of color in dysfunction (Halle Berry as addled single mother in Monster’s Ball) than in romantic comedies(Halle Berry in Boomerang)

  27. Rob Schmidt wrote:

    Re a Native American “slumdog/push/pursuit of happyness”: The SCALPED comic book series (http://www.bluecorncomics.com/scalped.htm) is getting a lot of acclaim. One of the best comics of the year and so forth.

    SCALPED’s depiction of Indians reminds me of the descriptions of black life in “Push” (above). It may be popular for the same reason as “Slumdog Millionaire.” Namely, because it lets people revel vicariously in “poverty porn.”

  28. Alienation wrote:

    The story of a morbidly obese black woman that “perseveres”, because everyone knows that black women are physically overbearing, and more “equipped” to handle pain (yeah, no stereotypes at allll there).

    I read Push in high school. It is extremely sexually graphic, which is problematic since it desensitizes us to sexual assault against black women and girls. Kinda like the average hip hop video. I do not recommend it for young students.

    I’m also really tired of morbidly obese black women (as opposed to other groups), being trotted out to prove how “strong” we are. There are plenty of fat white women. But they are never paraded out in movies to prove a point about how white women “survive” tribulations. The media shows us the images of the fat happy black woman, as if saying “I’m happy because I’m strong, treat me however you wish. Lawd knows I can betta handle it”.

    How many times have I seen a personable black female character, one who is free spirited, complex, vulnerable, human, feminine, or at LEAST going through the internal conflict necessary for every person’s fundamental growth? Yeah, I thought so.

  29. gogobooty wrote:

    *SPOILER WARNING*

    I seem to recall some similar criticism of “The Color Purple” when it came out. There were some who objected to the incest and the physical abuse, and said it was yet another negative portrayal of black men. Some people said that Spielberg as director was an incorrect choice because he’s white and it was a black story…etc.

    As I recall “Push” it was very grim, with all the misery of “The Color Purple” plus the Precious character contracts HIV from her rapist father. I admit I am curious whether this film project includes all the horrible circumstances of the book. Not surprising that people cried seeing what they did keep. After hearing about that woman locked in the basement for years, raped by her father, birthing babies that he murdered and incinerated, we KNOW real life is already much worse than the most extreme fiction.

    I kind of agree with the OP about the lingering sense of gloom the book left behind. The film version would definitely need to amp up the “hope” in the last reel to counterbalance it.

    Cheers
    ~~~gogo

  30. Rchoudh wrote:

    I agree with SayNay. While it’s good to show both negative and positive descriptions of life within all communities, American films have a tendency to show both positive and negative descriptions of white American life. For every depressing story about white America you have in films like Revolutionary Road, you get many more fun-filled humorous stories in rom-coms like He’s just not that into you and so forth. There’s no such balance like this when it comes to stories depicting POC characters. While you have an overwhelming number of negative descriptions you have a dearth of positive descriptions where POC’s play the main characters and where their positive stories become crossover successes with all audiences, whites included. I think that’s why I’m reluctant to see yet another depressing movie starring POC’s.

  31. coco wrote:

    i was not asserting that those movies are perfect, but more checking for representation and the type of depiction.

    the blog author’s discomfort with the subject matter makes me wonder if it’s just this particular story, or if its exasperation at yet another depressing media message about black women.

    i give credit for the fact that the book is by a black woman. i’m not saying the image is a distortion or a stereotype. but, the gatekeepers who fund and produce film presumably are able to choose from a variety of stories to tell. why this one?

  32. coco wrote:

    and, i guess my other question is: Are these gatekeepers funding and producing other types of stories about black women as well?

    that’s why I called to mind the 2008 list of black women in movies.

  33. JdMba wrote:

    I’m much more excited to see “Medicine for Melancholy,” a movie that represents a non-stereotype of Black people. I encourage us all to support that film!

    Plus, I don’t trust reviews written by Caucasian audiences when the subjects are Black. There is this tendency to overgeneralize, the concept that the Black experience is so charmingly enduring. It’s a way to keep Black people in “their place,” even when done with a purported awe.

    I am with the other posters who wonder why Hollywood focuses on these dark and cringe-worthy places, while completely ignoring the other places of triumph and beauty.

  34. Free wrote:

    Co-sign with Cara, G.D. and LaurynX. Push is in my library and I’ve read it more than once. I’m glad that it’s been adapted to film and hope it gets distribution because I want to see it.

    “But for me, hope appeared too late in the work and retreated without a satisfying enough redemption for our heroine. ”

    Well, that’s life: sometimes hope does appear too late and tragic lives aren’t always redeemed. Sapphire didn’t write Push to make us comfortable, otherwise it would be a fairy tale.

  35. Kaonashi wrote:

    Personally, I’m tired of Hollywood happy endings. That’s been done, over and over again, and it doesn’t matter what race the person is. Plucky hero (or heroine) plucks themselves up from their bootstraps and becomes rich/famous/successful/thin/loved, and we all cheer!

    Well, guess what. Life doesn’t always have a happy ending. And some people simply end up with the shit end of the stick no matter what they do. Should their stories NOT be told or sanitized to make others (and ourselves) feel comfortable? No.

    Sometimes people NEED to feel uncomfortable.

  36. browne wrote:

    “Are these gatekeepers funding and producing other types of stories about black women as well?” Coco

    Exactly. I can’t be happy about this movie. I will see it via the bootleg market, I’m not paying for yet another portrayal of the evil black man. I’m pretty sick of this. I’m pretty sick of black men in general being demonizied in this kind of movie. I hated the Color Purple for the same reason.

    Of course this is going to get funded. It’s poverty, racially charged porn.

    People watch these movies and it makes it seem that everyone who is poor has these insanely horrible lives and the poverty is owing only to these horrible parents and a horrible unsupportive community.

    It’s too damn easy.

    I would like to see the character who plays Precious being cast as a normal teenager. That would be ground breaking, this is not groundbreaking from what I’ve seen. I know what’s it is going to be and I don’t look forward to it.

    It’s not about me wanting something to be positive, but I don’t want my race to be used to make a point. While this is a movie about class, no one is going to see it that way it’s going to be seen as a slice of black life and that’s why I don’ t like it.

    I remember in college, people being surprised that I knew my dad. This was in the 1990s.

    Browne

  37. Ras wrote:

    I understand that the “fat black woman” is a problematic stereotype, but I’m made a bit uncomfortable by the implication that films shouldn’t have fat black women as protagonists. As long as the characters are complex (and non-stereotypical), why not? To the person who complained that movies never show obese white women as signs of “strength,” well, that’s true, but that doesn’t mean it’s right. I want to see strong woman protagonists of every race and body shape. Being fat in and of itself is not a Symbol for “strength,” but we need more strong (rather than passive) heroines and we need more fat heroines.

    IMHO, we need to think long and hard before casting fatness and disability as things which are *inherently* tragic and horrifying.

  38. Marco wrote:

    co-sign with yesand…!

    You broke it down!

  39. Alienation wrote:

    “There were some who objected to the incest and the physical abuse, and said it was yet another negative portrayal of black men.”

    Yeah I’ve heard this faulty logic as well. There is never any real discussion of the oppression of black women at the hands black men. It’s not “racist” to show the reality that black women are more likely to be raped, sexually abused, etc., than white women. When black men say that, they are saying that they don’t want “bad P.R”, at that we should pretend it’s not a problem. I don’t think people realize the impact that lack of information about black female sexual exploitation has had on black girls over the last couple of decades.

  40. blip wrote:

    It seems like black folk are more comfortable in lala land. Yall like to “stay positive” at all costs, even when you are crumbling inside.

    I just don’t get what most you you are saying here. I would say a good 95% of black films ARE pollyana-positive, unchallenging, unrealistic, unimaginative rubbish that is regurgitative and imitative of white life.

    I’m going to say it and it’s going to hurt.

    We black people can’t handle films that are intellectual. We can’t handle films that make us think DEEPLY about our lives. We want easy, topical, lite, breezy romantic comedies and black men in dresses.

    Come on.

    When was the last time you saw a film that served to showcase large black women who have feelings and pain and hurt and explore every part of their beingness on screen for two hours???? Obese black women are always the subject of scorn in television, commercial advertising, and in film. Period. There is never ever ever ever ever any deviation from that formula. Ever.

    And so here you have this film PUSH, that is the opposite…that actually serves to HUMANIZE overweight black women in all their complexities, and yall bitching & complaining about that?

    Films by their very nature showcase individuals with PROBLEMS. It seems like you pollyanas want to see films with perfect black people. MOST BLACK FILMS ARE ALREADY LIKE THAT. They’re lightweight and pointless and it’s the very reason they are no good.

    I am overwhelmed with disappointment right now.

  41. texascowgirl wrote:

    @browne

    I understand your sentiments, but quite frankly it’s not nearly as important as saving and protecting our girls and women. Most women and girls who are abused are abused by men of their same race. Most crime is about procimity. Those who hurt, hurt those who are closest to them. That is a fact. The black community needs to discuss these issues because our girls are suffering. Our girls are more likely to go missing, more likely to be forced into prostituion, more likely to get AID and more likely to be impregnanted by adult males. These are facts and for the most part it it done by black men. Not all and nowhere near the majority, but almost always black men. It sound like you are more concerned with the image of black men then keeping black girls and women safe and that attitude along with the silence must stop.

    I don’t care what white people see or think, I care what we see so that we can protect and save more of our children. Our unwillingness to talk about AIDS, abuse and black on black crime is killing us. This talking amongst ourselves in an effort to not air dirty laundry only makes more dirty laundry and the Precious Joneses of the world, regardless of how “normal” they look or not, can’t wait for us to get over our fear of what white folks will think. They need us to be out and loud now. Actually they needed that yesterday.

  42. Free wrote:

    Exactly Alienation. Poverty porn – that’s an interesting label. If this film is exploitative then I suppose that Lee Daniels is a pimp who panders to white guilt and Sapphire is another pimp contributing the oppression of black men and women. If you’re saying this film is poverty porn then so is the novel upon which it is based. The character Precious is fat and poor and I don’t understand why that makes anyone uncomfortable. It all sounds like fat phobia and class consciousness, as if Precious is some remanant of the past best forgotten or too ghetto and therefore not an appropriate representative of her race. What’s that old saying, oh yeah, she’s not a “credit to her race.” And her fictional daddy is rapist which should not be portrayed because black men should be protected at all costs and black woman, you are obliged to pay the price.

    I will be rejoice when black fictional characters are not viewed as representative of the character of an entire people. I hate to say it, but black folks contribute to this problem by falling into the trap. This is about artistic freedom.

    @brown – I would like to see the character who plays Precious being cast as a normal teenager.

    Normal? What is that?

  43. slb wrote:

    Lisa J.: “I have one question of the author, if she reads our comments. Why was the actress delusional for saying that audiences might be more amendable because of the Obama-effect? I think she may have a point.”

    I’m sorry I missed this earlier. My answer is: I think Patton may have made a logical leap here. She racialized/politicized what might’ve just been a human reaction to human suffering. I don’t think Obama’s election is going to make White people go see more Black films now, nor do I think it will make them invest more in Black suffering, generally.

    White people are always the predominant audience at Sundance, watching all kinds of screenings because the assumption of merit is attached to every film selected for that festival. They would’ve packed into the viewing because of the film’s pre-generated buzz (and it’s had quite a bit). I don’t see an obvious connection between Obama and a white audience coming to see the film in the first place or applauding the fact that it’s a film about Black suffering.

    Also, I think it’s too soon to gauge the “racial acceptance” effect of Obama’s presidency. He hasn’t even been in office two weeks.

  44. thejoyprincess wrote:

    I couldn’t get past the second page of Push years ago and purely based on that aversion, I will skip the film (if and when it is ever released) until someone I know pays my way to see it or otherwise drags me to the theater telling me to get over myself because it’s better than what I think. I’ll Netflix it though…

  45. Roxie wrote:

    I guess being fat isn’t normal

  46. pololly wrote:

    I think there is a mid point between glossing over the oppression that WOC face, many times from their own communities, and having to necessarily support any movie that portrays African Americans negatively. Some of the pro-Push crowd are getting nearly hysterical in their defense.

    I have no comment on the book and no real problem with the film, though I won’t be seeing it. I’m just not sure why she HAS to be morbidly obese. Isn’t this just a way to distance the (black and white audience) from the character? Because, heaven forbid, if she were attractive and relatable, wouldn’t that provoke a much more profound response from us? I don’t know why to be ‘real’ she must be unattractive. And since any black women, especially a dark skinned woman, is ALWAYS FAT in any movie it is hardly breaking boundaries.

    And, yes, rape and sexual abuse exist in the black community and are rampant there. But you know what, let’s still find a balance in how we portray black men because, guess what, it’s pretty prevalent in the white community too. And in middle class households. Don’t know why the vast majority of depictions of black men must somehow namecheck how SEXUALLY TERRIFYING THEY ARE. Cower before the horrifying man beast that is the African American male.

    Secondly, I know this is a pop culture blog but I think you all need to calm down. Really? That’s all it takes to stop rape and exploitation? A movie. The ’silence’ that allows exploitation to flourish can be shattered by many things, but not this movie. Let’s try serious sustained heavily funded cultural and societal intervention for a start.

    Anyway, like I said. No problem with the movie especially since it is adapted from a book but people who aren’t gonna enjoy watching it are not necessarily doing so because they’d like to perpetuate a culture of sexual violence towards women. They’re not pollyannas so yeah, the sane middle ftw.

  47. Myles wrote:

    12. yesand. . .

    I agree with what you said a lot. But I think there won’t be a Native American version of this because most people are really comfortable with Native Americans being a part of the United States history, and would prefer that they stay there.

    But then again, I’d rather not see another Native American version of this, so it’s wishful thinking.

    I also think these kinds of movies make some white people feel like they have the right to say that they “understand” or “understand more than you would think” about what it is like to be non-white person. And it also gives them the right to devalue the everyday struggle of of the people around them, white and non-white.

    It gives them something to point to when they say, “oh, come on, your life wasn’t that bad.”

    But then I also think that it is important to have these kinds of images in the media to give people a reminder that everything isn’t alright in the world.

  48. Ksisay wrote:

    The author of the book belongs to my food coop here in Brooklyn. When I run into her in the aisles, she always seems to have a furtive look about her, as though preparing to be judged. I never say more than “Hello,” because I tried to read “Push” once long ago and couldn’t get far. I detested it. I mean viscerally. I’ve also resented the fact that almost every NYC middle-schooler is assigned this book at some point. Always by a white instructor, whom I assume, thinks the students will be able to relate, although very few have experienced such extreme abuse. They never seem to assign Ralph Ellison’s Invisible Man or Toni Morrison’s Song of Solomon. (Of course, there are exceptions among these teachers.)

    I’m a writer myself and I do not advocate censorship. I hesitated to post because it’s unfair to judge a book I never completed. I think, however, that art for upliftment is the way to go. Often artists must show the ugly to get to the truth, but it’s how you do it and it’s up to us as audiences to decide what we’ll allow to impact our spirits. Everything’s not for everybody.

    I do plan to see the movie, though I’ll probably be wincing. From what I’ve read here, it should be easier to take than the book . And I hear that Monique did a killer acting job. Then again, we always get kudos for playing roles that require us to degrade our folk. I still remember the look on Denzel’s face when he won the Oscar for “Training Day.” He gave Sidney Poitier some love in the balcony, but was otherwise terse. I’d heard he felt it was bittersweet — they rewarded him for playing a thug of a cop, but wouldn’t even nominate him for “The Hurricane,” which he felt was some of the best work he’d ever done…

  49. Daomadan wrote:

    “I’m just not sure why she HAS to be morbidly obese. Isn’t this just a way to distance the (black and white audience) from the character? Because, heaven forbid, if she were attractive and relatable, wouldn’t that provoke a much more profound response from us? I don’t know why to be ‘real’ she must be unattractive. And since any black women, especially a dark skinned woman, is ALWAYS FAT in any movie it is hardly breaking boundaries.”

    Woah, some of the fat hating on this thread is going too far. Who is to say she isn’t attractive or relatable simply because she’s fat? If the author made her fat as some way to gain sympathy or some “poor her, she’s fat” way of thinking then that’s problematic, but fat, thin, or inbetween–women shouldn’t be judged based on our weight or “attractiveness” to the rest of society.

  50. yesand... wrote:

    @Ksisay: TRUE.

  51. bradski wrote:

    Ditto what Daomadam said.

    Why is there hatred for the actress and her looks?

    Step back and understand that black women with very dark skin are usually not portrayed in film these days. Right? Most black actresses are either dark brown (Viola Davis) to light brown (Halle Berry) to pale tan (Beyonce).

    On area of concern for this movie is that it could generate a “Color Purple” backlash that empowers whites to dismiss the racism experienced by blacks because of black on black violence exhibited in the film. Sadly, many people are unable to understand that oppression takes place on multiple levels in society, and that one does not replace or excuse another.

  52. blip wrote:

    This whole post reminds me of how removed most black people from the beauty of truth. Our psyches never fail to delight me in how we consciously or unconsciously choose to be distanced from pain that might otherwise liberate us.

    We can’t even read a book or view a film that makes us uncomfortable??? Jeez. It seems a lot of you couldn’t read the book for superficial reasons, citing that you couldn’t ‘relate.’ So, none of you personally know a black woman, an obese person, a dark-skinned individual, someone who has been abused, or someone who lacks education?

    Does it shame you to equate yourself with a character in a film? Why does it embarrass you if you are nothing like the character? Why is it that you can go out and see the latest Madea debacle? Is it that you ‘relate’ to a man mimicking a woman? Why is it that you refuse to support a sincere rendering of black life (even though it’s not your life), yet put your money and time into Tyler Perry?

  53. gatamala wrote:

    There are gradations to life. You can defend the book and the film and detest Madea’s “we can make it if we pray” films.

    What I find problematic is the church-poverty dynamic. There is a whole lot of complexity omitted by the overcoming tragedy angle.

    I’m glad someone brought up Medicine for Melancholy.

  54. Free wrote:

    @ Daomadan: co-sign. This isn’t the only thread at Racialicious where I’ve noticed fat prejudice and class bigotry. For some reason, some people just can’t live without hating on others, even as they complain about being hated on.

  55. pololly wrote:

    >Woah, some of the fat hating on this thread is going too far. Who is to say she isn’t attractive or relatable simply because she’s fat? If the author made her fat as some way to gain sympathy or some “poor her, she’s fat” way of thinking then that’s problematic, but fat, thin, or inbetween–women shouldn’t be judged based on our weight or “attractiveness” to the rest of society.<

    Sorry but this really has nothing to do with it. The film is not about how weight shouldn’t affect a person’s attractiveness in society. If it does address the issue of weight it is clearly within a context of many many others that are its primary concern. The fact that the girl is morbidly obese is meant to send out some clear social signals. Yes, it would be nice for ‘fat acceptance’ movements if this weren’t the case but it is. On the thread about ‘She’s just not that into you’, a lot of people were angry about the fact that the only WOC represented were overweight and ’sassy’. They weren’t featured to show ‘how women can be attractive at any size’, they were featured just to reinforce the opposite.

    Obviously this is not the case for this movie, at least explicitly. But I have a problem if black women are constantly being represented as overweight and unattractive.

    Also, I know this will get me some criticism but I don’t care: I really hope that the girl is wearing a enhanced suit because she is morbidly obese and really does need to get healthy. She is taking years off her own life.

  56. Celeste wrote:

    I’ll probably see the movie but I haven’t read the book. I wish it were available on Kindle. As for films that showcase our pathologies so that all the world can see, I see the value in them but there isn’t a good enough balance with positive films. It’s not even 50:50.

  57. browne wrote:

    “There is never any real discussion of the oppression of black women at the hands black men.”

    There is no discussion in the black community, but plenty of discussion of this in the non-black community. I have stated this before, but if you are a black woman artist are writer if you use the angle of “the evil black man” you are going to get lots of praise, grants and all kinds of talk about how groundbreaking you are.

    Yes in the black community there should be more talk on sexism, but its discussed ALOT in the mainstream community. Men of color oppressing women of color is one of mainstream America’s favorite themes.

    See Joy Luck Club and Color Purple for glaring examples of this.

    Browne

  58. Ms. Danielle wrote:

    I think the phrase “poverty porn” suggests that poor people should stay in the margins of society “where they belong” and not be seen or heard. To the contrary, I believe its a big world with alot of muted voices and everyone’s story should be represented.

  59. browne wrote:

    I have to state though, yeah the “fat” thing needs to stop. In regards to fat being negative. I have no problem with her being big or big women being used, its the portrayal I have an issue with, even if she were skinny.

    I think Gabby Sidibe is beautiful. Too bad Hollywood doesn’t see it that way.

  60. browne wrote:

    “I think the phrase “poverty porn” suggests that poor people should stay in the margins of society “where they belong” and not be seen or heard. ” Ms Danielle.

    I don’ t agree. I think all voices should be heard, but to take these slices of poor life and zero in on the negative, which is done over and over and over again, well that’s exploitation. That’s pornographic and that is not helping anyone.

    Anyone here going to pick up and move and help these sisters out, hell no. We will sit and type about them and maybe do some volunteer work, but movies like this isn’t going to do anything, because first off they aren’t even real.

    And come on what poor person’s voice is being heard? “Sapphire” is from a long line of black bohemian women raping the economically disadvantaged ghetto/rural experience for fame and fortune.

    When a book by a person of color who doesn’t have a MFA is published and made into a movie then I will respect their voice.

    This has nothing to do with poor people, this is a gimmick.

    When Wanda Coleman from Watts, no degree, former welfare mother, dark skinned, big woman gets a real book deal, gets her vision turned into a movie then I will know this isn’t all bs, but I won’t hold my breath.

    Browne

  61. gogobooty wrote:

    As I recall the book, and this is from several years ago, the “issue” of Precious’ obesity is not really up for discussion in the story. It kind of comes under the heading of The Least of Her Problems given all the other shit she is dealing with.

    Perhaps the point of creating an obese character is to give a nod to the idea of people using fat as a sort of protection from the harmful world around them. And maybe the point is to say that all shapes and sizes of women are subjected to violence and sexual abuse, regardless of whether they imagine fat will shield them from it, or not. Or maybe being fat is meant to be the natural cumulative result of her life. A girl who may never have been exposed to good nutrition has a baby and gets pregnant again soon after would be pretty likely to gain and retain weight.

    Wouldn’t it be more offensive to rewrite an obese character from a novel into a svelte movie starlet character for the film version?

    ~~~gogo

  62. Vidya wrote:

    “Also, I know this will get me some criticism but I don’t care: I really hope that the girl is wearing a enhanced suit because she is morbidly obese and really does need to get healthy. She is taking years off her own life.”

    This is an outrageously bigoted and misinformed comment, and I would like to ask the moderators to consider removing it.

    Fortunately, the young lady who plays this part is *not* wearing an ‘enhanced suit’ (the fat ‘blackface’), but is forging important ground for fat young accresses.

  63. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    Okay, things are getting a bit strained.

    I’m going to try to run some interference.

    @blip -

    I think the question for many isn’t “Why can’t we show black pain” but “why is black pain fetishized?” Some other commenters have pointed to some recent films to point out how the sum of the black experience is reduced to these kind of narratives.

    I agree with one part of your point – I also don’t like how there is a glut of historical triumph stories on the market that face blacks against unjust whites…I feel like the stories need to be told, but the prevalence makes me wonder what else is at play that gets movies like this green lit. I think the overwhelming desire is to have multiple types of narratives on screen – so that a Push can be next to a Love Jones can be next to a Medicine for Melancholy that can be next to a Secret Life of Bees without any one of those films being held up as the definitive experience in the eyes of the audiences.

    As for your point on Tyler Perry, I suggest searching for his name on this site. You may want to reframe your argument.

    @Alienation/Browne/Pololloy/Free/Bradski/Daomadan –

    The intersection between anti-racist activism, sexism, and fat acceptance/body positivity is a difficult one to probe because there are so many issues wrapped into each of these terms.

    I keep meaning to write a full length piece on it, but I’ve touched on Fat Acceptance, weight and race in these posts:

    http://www.racialicious.com/2008/03/11/hyacinth-hippo-history-walt-disney-and-race/

    http://www.racialicious.com/2008/03/04/glamour-magazine-on-women-race-and-beauty/

    http://www.racialicious.com/2007/02/21/real-women-of-color-have-curves/

    But most specifically here:

    http://www.racialicious.com/2008/03/24/intersectionality-extends-to-fat-acceptance-too/ (See me at comment 6 for the quickie breakdown)

    I understand and agree with, to some extent, all of your points. This shit is complicated. I just turned in a piece to Bitch on Oprah, Weight, and policing brown bodies, and I’m doing a little series for my day job about PoCs, food, and culture, so you could call this a significant side interest of mine. So, let me try to reframe this a little.

    Alienation/Pololly -

    I hear your frustration, because so often fat is used as shorthand for “ugly, unhealthy, unloveable.” And the prevailing image of black women in the media conforms to this stereotype. So, in a sense, it does feel painful to be confronted time and time again with images of black women that will never measure up to their white counterparts on screen. It is also distressing to wonder about the mind’s eye of distributors and producers – that black women always equate to funny and fat or bitchy and fat. (We posted a little on the movie Wanted , how the character of the boss was originally a bitchy black woman, that was changed to an obese bitchy white woman for the movie version. More cultural shorthand at work)

    However, knowing all of these things should not prompt us to erase the experiences of black women who are large/fat/morbidly obese, what have you. All of our stories deserve to be told, and a person’s weight shouldn’t have anything to do with the worthiness of their narrative.

    Free/Bradski/Daomadan/Browne -

    I have a lot of issues with the uncritical embrace of the philosophy of fat acceptance. I’m a huge fan of Kate/Fillyjonk/SweetMachine and a couple other members of the fatosphere. And as I’ve said before, the movement is necessary – Kate and Co. prove that every day.

    However, I always hesitate when it comes to embracing the fat acceptance label. I hesitate because with all the research I’ve done in the last few years on health, diet, veg*ism, and what not, shows that there is a serious problem with how we treat/think of food, race, and class.

    One of the figures I have to confront everyday in my work at my day job is the fact that 80% of African Americans qualify as overweight or obese. 80 freaking percent. Vast majority.

    Now, the BMI is more or less bullshit, particularly for minorities. When I interviewed Robyn McGee – the author of Hungry for More, a book she wrote after her sister died after complications resulting from weight loss surgery – she noted that one of the pioneering WLS docs modified his BMI charts as he noticed black women who were physically fit and healthy were still coming in at the highest ends of a healthy weight range according to the protocols.

    So that makes me question that 80% figure. (As well as the figure for Americans overall as well – 60%)

    And I totally agree with you on demonizing fat people as not being the way to go. For one thing, the term fat is highly subjective. I explained a bit about my weight and perception over in the thread I highlighted – I had to go another round of that in my office recently when talking about food and health resolutions for the New Year. I am physically 235 lbs. This is fact. My personal trainer weighs me once a week and I own a scale. But for some reason, when I state this, people see fit to debate it. And I find it interesting that most fat people have gone through this. So a lot of fat prejudice doesn’t stem from a genuine desire for health, but rather an accepted aesthetic. If you fit this aesthetic, you aren’t fat (even if you are). And if you do not fit this aesthetic, you are considered fat (even if you really aren’t.)

    All that being said, while Debra Dickerson my have rolled off the deep end with “Healthy My Ass” there are environmental factors linked with the presence of extra weight that is problematic. (Yes, I’ve read all the studies linked to on Shapely Prose, Junkfood Science is a great blog, and most research has only been able to vaguely link weight with the litany of charges brought up by the MeMe Roth’s of the world).

    But for some reason, weight is climbing around the globe. And not in the access to better nutrients kind of way. And when we look at black people in America, some very weird trends pop up:

    *Black youth (in general, urban, rural, and suburban) are more likely than their peers to be both (1) overweight and (2) undernourished. There is an excess of food and calories consumed, but a deficit of nutritional value to what is consumed.

    *One of my coworkers uncovered a very dense academic paper which demonstrated something truly startling. In the 1960s, the diets of *poor* blacks (defined as somewhere around poverty level) were more or less on par with healthy standards of eating. Even within the soul food style tradition (something that is demonized now) our diets were fine. In 30 years, that has shifted dramatically to the point where diets now are considered nutritionally poor. (The why was not explored in the paper, the researchers postulated overall shifts in the American diet, the introduction of processed foods [particularly sodas and fruit flavored drinks], changes in the types of work done and design of communities, increasing access to cars, and a loss of traditional food culture.)

    *Youth who are on the subsidized breakfast/lunch programs are at the whim of the state, which opts for calorie laden, processed foods that are cheaper to prepare and heavily injected with preservatives due to strict food budgets.

    *The existence of food deserts in urban areas – there is a good video on this over at CurrentTv.

    It is for these reasons that I identify as a body positivity activist and not a fat acceptance one. Because – as unpopular as this may be – fat can *sometimes* serve as a signal for significant distress in a population. And with blacks experiencing trauma from racism, high levels of sexual abuse, and depression that is often undiagnosed, it is very difficult for me to read a statistic like 80% of blacks are overweight or obese and not wonder how weight is related to these harmful trends.

    [For purposes of brevity - ha - I've left out all the research done on the manipulation of food, the food industry, and the idea that scientifically enhanced food is superior.]

    So to address your points, yes, fatphobia is very real, the character of Precious Jones should not be judged on her size, and fatness does not automatically equate to being unrelateable/unloveable though it is used this way in cultural shorthand.

    However, I do understand where Pololly & Alienation are coming from because this cultural shorthand exists , rightly or wrongly, and because there are so many issues wrapped up in size and weight it becomes difficult to look at a character like Precious Jones and not see the problematic aspects of that representation.

  64. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    @Pololly –

    Whoo, damn, skimmed over this part of your comment:

    Also, I know this will get me some criticism but I don’t care: I really hope that the girl is wearing a enhanced suit because she is morbidly obese and really does need to get healthy. She is taking years off her own life.

    But that leads me to a point I forgot to make above – critiquing the trends of society at large DOES NOT EQUATE to shaming individual fat people. You CANNOT know someone’s health situation from looking at them. So comments like that are uncalled for. Or, think of it this way. I critique the structural nature of racism and how it manifests in pop culture on a daily basis. This does not mean I ran up on every single person who bought a ticket to any of the movies we’ve criticized on this site and got in their faces about having the nerve to enjoy a movie. We can critique ideas and trends without directly attacking another individual, particularly if that attack is based in what amounts to fat stereotypes.

    And I also forgot to mention why I like fat acceptance: simply put, the policing of other people’s bodies has got to stop. No one is being fat at you and fat acceptance intersects with feminism in the best way when it analyzes how bodies are policed for aesthetic acceptability.

    All the arguments I made above about why I was a bit reluctant to embrace the philosophy?

    Structural in nature.

    And I don’t feel that blaming the individual is all that helpful, particularly when most of these issues have a societal root. The individual is just a convenient scapegoat.

    @Vidya –

    Bigoted, it may be, but I have faith in the other commenters to argue against it and to present compelling evidence to the contrary.

  65. blip wrote:

    I think the overwhelming desire is to have multiple types of narratives on screen – so that a Push can be next to a Love Jones can be next to a Medicine for Melancholy that can be next to a Secret Life of Bees without any one of those films being held up as the definitive experience in the eyes of the audiences.
    _____________________

    I wouldn’t compare Push to any of those films, as the rest are archetypes we’ve seen so many times. The Medicines, Jones and Bees will always get made. A Push, maybe once every ten or twenty years. Overall those films are meant to be unchallenging and lightweight, and seem to cater to a non-intellectual black audience.

    But the same can be said for a general white audience. Whites won’t go to see a War Zone or a Breaking the Waves in droves either.

  66. Hibbs4Prez wrote:

    I disagree with Aleination. I like the fact that a fat, dark skinned black girl is the lead of a film. That’s totally different from the light skinned girls that dominate black female roles these days.

  67. Hibbs4Prez wrote:

    “There is no discussion in the black community, but plenty of discussion of this in the non-black community. I have stated this before, but if you are a black woman artist are writer if you use the angle of “the evil black man” you are going to get lots of praise, grants and all kinds of talk about how groundbreaking you are.

    Yes in the black community there should be more talk on sexism, but its discussed ALOT in the mainstream community. Men of color oppressing women of color is one of mainstream America’s favorite themes.

    See Joy Luck Club and Color Purple for glaring examples of this.”

    Preach it, browne. Studios don’t put out male-bashing films in which the characters are white and not one good white male can be found. But when its “minorities”? Oh, by all means bash all the men!

    One reason I don’t really read novels by black females any more is because black guys became caricatures. Black novelists can’t get away with stereotyping white folks in books as much as black women put black male characters in a box. No thanks.

  68. jvansteppes wrote:

    “There will similarly never be too many Holocaust films. ” -Ariel

    A brief tangent. I know I’m in sensitive territory here and I want to make it clear that I appreciate that this is about the context of arguing that there oughtn’t be a cap on films about hardship but I would argue that there are too many Nazi Holocaust films, or rather that Hollywood’s production of Nazi Holocaust films, of which there are many, is actually deeply problematic. First of all, in the sense that when depicting the Nazi Holocaust, most filmmakers selectively depict parts of that history, leaving some stories out altogether (anti-Jewish hatred among the Allies, the suffering of gypsies, homosexuals and people with disabilities in camps/under Nazi rule…).
    I also find that Nazi Holocaust films are a safe bet in that they enable Hollywood to set up the image of American goodwill, genocide as a thing of the past and genocide as a freak, one time event committed by people who were then totally removed from power…
    But I guess this could be a whole other thread.

  69. blip wrote:

    I think the question for many isn’t “Why can’t we show black pain” but “why is black pain fetishized?”
    _________________________

    What films are you referring in the past year or even 5 years where black pain is fetishized? Black people are never taken seriously enough to have their issues explored on film in a way that it might possibly be ‘fetishized’, so I find your statement laughable.

    Here’s the problem I’m having with your line of thinking.

    It seems like you prefer a carefully crafted image of ‘blackness’ on screen because you’re afraid of association and possibly how whites would view you. You may interpret film though white eyes and not your own and feel shamed or personally responsible if those images are not in line with your values, because you are also black.

    I can see how this might curtail an aesthetic appreciation for black art that is outside the boundaries of “staying positive” and keeping it real.” That’s why it’s so easy for black mimics and regurgitationists to put out films like Medicine for Melancholy and be universally praised as if the filmmakers parted the red sea.

  70. Monie wrote:

    @Celeste

    That’s why I don’t own a kindle. It seems that if a book is not by Walter Mosley or Toni Morrison, then Black authors don’t have any chance of having there book on Kindle.

  71. Monie wrote:

    This, conversation, is exactly why there needs to be a film like PUSH and more films like it.

    When is the last time a film starring a Black cast and about a Black life (and not a darned comedy) has inspired so much thought on a thread?

  72. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    @blip –

    It seems like you prefer a carefully crafted image of ‘blackness’ on screen because you’re afraid of association and possibly how whites would view you. You may interpret film though white eyes and not your own and feel shamed or personally responsible if those images are not in line with your values, because you are also black.

    It seems that you are making a lot of assumptions. I didn’t share my feelings on Push as I haven’t read the book or seen the film, just the summary published here, written by SLB. I summarized what other commenters were saying, and pointed out your flawed assumption about the unquestioned support of Tyler Perry.

    If you have an ax to grind, this is the wrong blog to do it on.

    And just because *You* prefer to make assumptions about what the audience here watches and likes, doesn’t mean everyone does. If you look at the films made within the black community, on shoestring budgets and with community support/director’s connection, reflecting various forms of black life versus what is promoted in mainstream America about the black experience, clear themes emerge. One of these themes is that black suffering is relateable, while black successes are not. There are some good discussions of these assumptions on black film blogs and in trade mags – white audiences have come to understand the “ethnic” experience (not just black, but nonwhites in general) to be linked with suffering. To them, those stories feel authentic. However, a story about PoCs who are not (1) experiencing a culture clash or (2) battling racism as the predominant plot of the story or (3) battling each other doesn’t ring as authentic, therefore it is harder to persuade producers and such there is an audience for this film. (There is also racial pigeonholing – the idea that only one ethnicity will be able to relate to a certain film, while whiteness is universal.)

    You can have whatever opinion you like on Push, along with other commenters here. But belaboring the same point over and over again doesn’t serve much of a purpose, particularly when you are relying on assumptions to prove a point that is incorrect.

  73. Ree wrote:

    I read Push long ago and it stayed with me for so long. I don’t know if I will be going to see the film. I have a 4 year old, so mostly, it’s animated films for me, but even so, I remember how affected I was by the book, not sure I want to feel that way at the movies. But I sure am glad to see it made.

  74. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    @Celeste –
    I don’t know what just happened. I approved your comment but it seems to be in some weird spam feedback loop where I can hit the back button on my browser and see it, but when I go to rescue it from spam it vanishes on me.

    Can you resubmit?

    And I meant to say that I didn’t think up the body positive activist thing, I got it from here:

    http://www.bfdblog.com/2007/07/17/10-ways-to-be-a-body-positivity-advocate/

  75. Alienation wrote:

    Hibbs4Prez:

    “I like the fact that a fat, dark skinned black girl is the lead of a film. That’s totally different from the light skinned girls that dominate black female roles these days.”

    I disagree with this logic. We see the fat black girl lead many times. The message conveys that dark skinned black women are louder, bigger, stronger, etc., while the light skinned woman (usually in lead) is feminine, approachable, vulnerable and more human.

    Why doesn’t the film industry to something RADICAL and cast a dark skinned female as a love interest? Or why don’t we cast morbidly obese white women who go through sexual abuse on the big screen? The dark skinned “Strong” or “Fat” black female is often contrasted with the dark skinned superwhore. Both of which, imply that darker skinned black women are either ugly and strong, or immoral and loose. This RACISM based on race and skin shade has cost a lot of black women serious oppression in this society. It doesn’t take a lot to figure that out.

    I’d personally like to see a “new” type of film.

  76. Alienation wrote:

    “The intersection between anti-racist activism, sexism, and fat acceptance/body positivity is a difficult one to probe because there are so many issues wrapped into each of these terms.”

    I agree, Latoya. I’m NOT at ALL implying that women shouldn’t embrace positive body image. I wouldn’t.

    However, I’ve noticed that obese black women don’t pose a threat to the power structure of inherent white female privilege (this was why Mammy was created). That black women’s “heavy skin” and “big bones” is a code that helps keep our alleged inherent “strength” in place. That Queen Latifah, while diverse, is really there to contrast against the ideal white female body. It’s not “diversity”, or else we would be seeing more fat white women. The added graphic sexual assault on film helps us become dissensitized to horrific acts against women of color. “Racism” (yes, racism), implies that black women overwhelmingly are loud, overbearing, masculine or fat, and :key word: “strong”.

    I’d never have a problem with this if we were seeing fat asian, white, hispanic women more regularly… But we aren’t. Why? (I hope no one says that it’s because black women are on average “larger”. American white women on average are not 5′10 and 100 pounds- but that’s what we see).

  77. leslie wrote:

    I get what everyone is saying about the tragic black female role. Its a shame that those roles are all that we get. Especially when black women and girls are in such great need of positive images. Its seems like black men, through Denzel and Will Smith, have transcended. They’re playing roles that have nothing to do with their race. I guess thats what black women want, we don’t want the tragic, stereotypical roles or the fake successful strong woman stuff, tyler perry. The only black woman who has enjoyed that success is Halle Berry really. Which brings me to Paula Patton, i guess she is the new Halle. White america likes her so we’ll see her in everything. It kinda troubles me that we have this light ,bright bi-racial black woman standing in as the white savior. Or maybe I’m just cynical. –I’m happy that this film is from a book. I really believe that the novel is the future for black film. At least we get completely thought out plot lines. I think Toni Morrison’s Love would make a good movie. The female characters are beautiful, sophisticated women. We’ll have some good sex scenes, older man and younger woman, i haven’t seen that coupling on the screen yet. And the story is about a widow’s daughter who looses her best friend to her father. The two women war for his attention. When the father dies, they have to learn to live together. –

  78. elle wrote:

    I have to co sign with blip. “Poverty Porn” seriously? How many films have their been made that dealt with the problems of the Black community? 4?5 if you count City of God,even though its not set in America? Face it, during the few times Black folks are represented, were always one-dimensional,perfect,don’t have problems, and inoffensive. The Cosby Show was a hit the last time I noticed, as was Family Matters and Soul Food. Besides, I think these so-called positive tv shows have a negative effect on the white consiousness, by telling them Black folks have finally “made it” and “racism is dead”. Its no coincidence that The Cosby Show was syndicated during the 80s, height of Reaganomics, the crack epidemic, and huge job loss for the black community.

  79. Daomadan wrote:

    Latoya: I appreciate that you’ve stepped into this thread to clarify some points and to talk yourself. Personally, I have some issues with the FA movement too and have a hard time accepting some aspects of it…but in this circumstance, the discussion wasn’t just about the many intersections of Precious’ weight, race, etc but was talking about what is a “normal” person (i.e. NOT fat) and how morbidly obese people are walking health hazards. These claims were prejudiced and way out of line and contributing nothing to this conversation about a film that represents black pain, and how its presented to the public, with a beautiful young actress portraying Precious’ life. In the film/Hollywood world of Halle Berrys I’m glad to see a young actress like Gabourey Sidibe out there.

  80. sk wrote:

    yesand…(#12), I also made the connection to Slumdog. I don’t know if I have the heart to watch Push after watching Slumdog.

    Part of me understands that Slumdog is really not such a profound movie, it’s a fairytale. It’s great that Jamal gets the girl and the money. And while there were elements that stretched the truth, there was enough truth about the most horrific aspects of life as an abjectly poor person born in a country with very little social justice. I go to India every year and while I am happy to see my family, I cannot buy into the “India Shining” propaganda.

  81. pololly wrote:

    >But that leads me to a point I forgot to make above – critiquing the trends of society at large DOES NOT EQUATE to shaming individual fat people. You CANNOT know someone’s health situation from looking at them. So comments like that are uncalled for. <

    Latoya, I understand your cultural critique and I agree on the most part. An individual should not be cast as the scapegoat for societal trends.

    But, while I can understand browne et al jumping on anything I say, but I honestly don’t quite understand why *you* see this one comment as fat shaming. I would not walk up to the girl and tell her to lose weight or insult her in any way, but the fact is that she does need to. Even if she is incredibly healthy, she could be more so at a lesser size. She doesn’t need to lose weight because a racist patricharchy values her less as a person because of it (though they do and they can go f themselves) but because she IS endangering her health. I am reading through the posts you highlighted and related sites but from what I can see, fat acceptance must be coupled with a pro health attitude. Healthcare in America is so expensive and discriminatory. I understand the desire for ‘intersectionality’ but it seems like black people have enough problems without taking on a mentality which is not our own. I would rather see our people fighting for access to healthy food and safe areas to play and walk in low income neighbourhoods, and obviously affordable healthcare rather than expend a lot of energy on this issue trying to walk that fine line that is defending people’s rights and dignity but also acknowledging that sometimes people’s behavior is wrong. And I’m sorry but anyone who is advocating the former without the latter is well intentioned but WRONG.

    Anyway, this is really food for another post and I don’t want to take the conversation off track. I am doing more research into fat acceptance for (I hope) your later post on this issue. I just thought I should take the time to respond to your substantive and very intelligent post.

  82. yesand... wrote:

    @browne: “When a book by a person of color who doesn’t have a MFA is published and made into a movie then I will respect their voice.”

    WORD. that speaks to the following point.

    @blip/elle: it seems like you don’t know what artifacts such as “poverty porn” are, so here’s my shot at defining it. (insert race/class/ethnicity/nationality in blank)

    ______ porn are narratives/cultural products that are distinctly crafted (or altered from the original) by and for everyone but the class of people that the product depicts (*ahem* rich “white” people). Note that the best interests or feelings of the depicted demographic is callously disregarded. The label of poverty porn is somewhat dependent on the actual audience of the show…it must serve a guilt-alleviating, just-world reinforcing, self-flagellating, or fetishistic catharsis for the viewer/producers (hence porn-orgasm metaphor). The test is whether a person who is part of the depicted demographic relates to the piece, and the narrative corroborates some of their life experiences accurately. If it is a “safari” through the “wilderness of the ______” then the depicted demographic will probably become angry/laugh at/dismiss/cry that they are being misrepresented in such an ignorant, insensitive, and farcical fashion.

    Examples that could be considered “_____ porn”

    see: every gangster/mafia movie ever made.
    see: mainstreamed “gangsta” rap (via CB40)
    see: slumdog millionare (sorry fans)
    see: The Color Purple (novel) vs. The Color Purple (film)
    see: Extreme Makeover.
    see: Jerry Springer + other similar talkshows
    see: good times. (listen to the theme…temporary layoffs – good times?)
    see: Stryker (film)
    see: dances with wolves/last samurai/last of the mohicans travesties.
    see: the biggest loser. (for the size-acceptance folks)
    see: the great debaters (that stupid smirk gag gave it away…and also all the white people in the theater got up and applauded all crying at the end…)

    Need I continue? (i am sure I am missing a lot here, so feel free to chime in)

    Whenever rich/celebrity/elite white people (read-rich people who go to cannes) applaud for something, I automatically get suspicious. If “Push” didn’t get such great acclaim from these people, I would probably be excited.

  83. yesand... wrote:

    oh, and i forgot to put in the word “exploitative”…sorry

  84. bradski wrote:

    Latoya,

    Thanks for your reply. I don’t believe that “fat acceptance” is a good thing. The reality is that obesity is a killer. The rates of illnesses amongst Americans, in particular people of color, because of obesity is shocking. Giving a broad “it’s okay to be fat and fabulous” is dangersous.

    On the other hand, demonizing those suffering from obesity only serves to inflame psychological issues that many obese people suffer. This abets a serious increase in problems that the obese suffer.

    As for the rise of obesity in Americans, there is a direct correlation to the rise in affluence and cheap unhealthy food, especially foods adulterated with high fructose corn syrup. There are several studies that correlate rapid increase of obesity with the appearance of HFC since its replacement of cane sugar in the food supply in the 1970s.

    My concerns with some of the comments, however, were about the seeming revulsion that people had about the picture of the star of “Push.” The attitude reminded me of bigoted beliefs that define beauty by a Eurocentric standard of skin color and body morphology and phenotype–shape of facial features, skin color, size of buttocks (the whole Michelle Obama comments).

    When I look at the picture of the lead actress of “Push,” I see an over weight woman who is well dressed, has beautiful skin, is nicely styled hair and a pretty face. Since I don’t know the actress, I do not know if her obesity is the result from a medical condition or poor eating habits or psychological illness, or being a gourmand.

    People over eat for many reasons. Therefore, I try not to judge.

  85. brownstocking wrote:

    Interesting, “Push” was part of AfterEllen’s Best. Lesbian. Week. Ever. this week.: http://www.afterellen.com/blwe/01-30-09

    Intersectionalities…

    smh

  86. Alienation wrote:

    “I don’t believe that “fat acceptance” is a good thing. ”

    This issue is far bigger than “fat acceptance”.

    I just wanted to come back and say that it was a mistake for me not to clarify what I mean by “fat”. I mean the “fat” archetype- the stereotypes that come with fatness, etc, I don’t mean what I think of as “fat”. (The lazy “fat” hawaiian in movies for example). The black woman who is constantly portrayed in American Culture as obese to prevent her from being a sexual threat to white supremacy, and to highlight her strong robust body has nothing to do with diversity, body acceptance, or “change”. We also see far more muscular black women than any other group for the same reason, albeit a lot less. The message is that black women “naturally” have “stronger” bodies in both volume and spirit.

    Usually the people who buy into this some times benefit from that particular stereotype (it’s actually meant to benefit white women as mammy was). I don’t think any woman of color should be “tricked” into thinking this is about diversity. Or, we’d see more “diversity” in attractive female leads and that would include darker skinned black women in pop culture. But we don’t.

    Was “Mammy” in Gone with the Wind about fat acceptamce? Why wasn’t Scarlet also “fat”? What about Aunt Jemima?

  87. Bagelsan wrote:

    every gangster/mafia movie ever made.

    …eh? The rest I follow but this one lost me. Are gangsters a protected group now too? :p

  88. m.m. wrote:

    i wonder, then, why people aren’t harping on the books that prompted these films (Push and Slumdog Millionaire), each written by people of color, and each seemingly crafted by their life experience, MFA or not.

    yes, there’s no doubt there’s a fetishization inherent in many of mainstream films about POC or other oppressed groups (LGBT, religious minorities, et al), but some of these movies are still thought-provoking, perhaps to those who were initially ignorant to aspects of the “other” they don’t see everyday, while some are indeed unengaging.

    i don’t know. now i feel dumb as all hell because i don’t know how to speak to this with all the academic-like speak. but anyway, should this film hit wide-release, do people really think the audience it’s apparently catered to (whites) will come out in droves to watch Push?

  89. noah wrote:

    I don’t disagree about the prevalence of overweight black women presented in the media. It’s normally a stereotype. On the other hand, I don’t think that Moni’que was chosen by white media staff for her rubinesque appearance.

    I do disagree about there being an issue with muscular black woman. Angela Basset had a muscular physique in several roles because they called for it (playing Tina Turner, for example).

    Moreover, there is a difference between a woman looking fit and looking like a weightlifter. (Many professional female weightlifters look masculine; not a judgment call, it’s just a result of steroid use and loss of body fat.)

  90. Ras wrote:

    “Was “Mammy” in Gone with the Wind about fat acceptamce? Why wasn’t Scarlet also “fat”?”

    No, not all fat characters are about fat acceptance. I’d argue that many aren’t–look at how often fat characters are sidekicks, punchlines, desexualized, and otherwise stereotypes. As this thread points out, this intersects with racism in a major way.

    I haven’t read the book, but to me this sounds somewhat different than the usual b.s. treatments of fat Black women. For one, she’s the protagonist. Presumably, her character is more fully developed. That’s significant. I’m not about to declare this movie a positive thing for fat/body acceptance before having seen this, but I am uncomfortable with the fact that so many people here are antagonistic simply to the idea of a movie about a fat Black woman. A lot of the comments seem to be disparaging to fat Black women in fact.

    And I’m decidedly uncomfortable with the argument that “you never see fat white women as leads.” True–but is this supposed to be a good thing?!! I’m all for acknowledging how us white people benefit from racial privilege–but I am not for thinking that representations of white people, and the kinds of white people which get represented, are simply The Way Things Ought to Be.

  91. Winn wrote:

    In light of the discussion of poverty porn, here’s a link to a Salon article about four films released this year dealing with the experiences of people in impoverished circumstances. Of the four films examined, one deals with a Latino protagonist, one an African American protagonist. I have seen all of these films with the exception of “Chop Shop”, and if there were any justice, Michelle Williams would have taken Angelina Jolie’s place as a Best Actress Oscar nominee this year. And I found Ballast profoundly moving and haunting, and I connected to it on a personal level, although I did not share the character’s specific background or environment. I’d be interested to see what we think about fetishisizing the experience of the poor as presented in “Push” when it is juxtaposed against these other films which tread somewhat similar ground…

    http://www.slate.com/id/2209789

  92. SepiaScreen wrote:

    If Push has the authenticity of a film like The Wrestler, then I’m for it showing the “warts and all” of this woman’s existence. I thought Lee Daniels did a good job with producing Monster’s Ball and I think he has a knack for truth-telling. I prefer that over fluff and sanitized movies any day.

  93. bdsista wrote:

    Having been plus sized all my life with the GOAL to be a solid size 16, I totally get the FA movement. Its really hard to live through the past 40 years and try to find attractive clothes that fit you. Particularly if you had a large bosom. Never mind, you can pay full price, etc. I just read on Forbes.com that Ann Taylor is one of the chains in trouble and it makes sense. Ann Taylor has nothing over size 14. Most of my friends don’t shop there. I haven’ walked inside for over 10 years. ditto for Casual Corner which also went out of business. When you are large, you have to learn to accept yourself otherwise you will engage in comfort eating behavior. There are people who are just big and will never be small. I am in that category. I was 12/14 in high school and if you look at my pictures, I look pretty thin. I am 5′7″ between 190-200 now and if you look at my pics, I don’t look like it. Am I fit? Hell yeah, I teach dance for three hours twice a week, take class once a week, am an AFAA certified fitness instructor and perform at least 2-3X a month. I direct a dance troupe of women of all shapes sizes and ages and have placed first runner up in two bellydance competitions. Oh and I am 50 years old!. I get really sick of people judging people by their weight and appearance when they know nothing about them. Endurance and strength can exist in women size 24 and size 2. check out
    http://www.plusmodelmag.com/
    and
    http://www.venusdivamag.com/Pages/plus-size-archives.asp

    Rant over, now, I amtired of the black mammy image vis a vis and light pretty thin black girl. I am really ready for the handsome guy to pick the thick sista over the light thin girl. Kinda like what happened in Waiting to exhale’s character played by Loretta Devine

  94. sjelly wrote:

    This comment thread has been fascinating and thought-provoking. I’m glad I happened on to it. I’m looking forward to seeing the movie, at least in part, because of the buzz (positive, negative, ambivalent) it’s generating on “black” websites. I have to add that although I read “Push,” in it’s entirety, the reasons I disliked it have more to do with the fact that I thought it was really badly written and rife with cliches, than with it’s portrait of a poor, brutalised girl. The drama of Precious’ story is what prompted me to read the book; I just wish the writing had been better.

  95. NancyP wrote:

    Hmm. Poverty porn: The Color Purple book v. movie. I didn’t think that the book was PP, but it did strike me as having a fable or parable-like quality at the time that I read it ages ago. I haven’t seen the movie so I can’t say much about the adaptation. I do remember the hoo-hah about rape and incest, and thinking, well, these things exist everywhere.

    Are (commercial) movies inherently more likely to be PP, because there is less opportunity to reflect? Americans expect a certain level of pacing in movies, which can inhibit the opportunity to notice and reflect.

    As for this particular book and movie, I can’t comment – when it came out, I didn’t want to read about incest etc., and then I forgot about the book. I don’t know if all white people want to read happy/ qualified hopeful endings books because ” it lets us off the hook” or because “there is no way out of true hopelessness, therefore,the steadily disastrous endings let us off the hook too”. I tend to want to read history, or read fiction with historical context in mind.

  96. Winn wrote:

    Also, on the issue of fat acceptance, it’s worth pointing out, as some previous posters have alluded to, that I’m sure Precious’ weight was a conscious narrative choice on the part of Sapphire, and one that, given the character’s history and present context, makes perfect sense. Precious lives in an environment with limited access to healthy and nutritious foods, which are often far more expensive than the heavily processed, high fat and sodium foods that are easy to obtain in low-income neighborhoods. Latoya mentioned “food deserts”, and those are no joke. Given her life circumstances, I also don’t see a lot of opportunities for Precious to get in a good work-out three times a week, or to be inculcated with the importance of consuming eight glasses of water a day. And I doubt two teenage pregnancies would have been considered figure-enhancing either.

    And importantly, let’s examine the psychological reasons that underlie why Precious might have started down the road to obesity. Namely, sexual abuse and parental neglect. Eating for comfort, eating for protection, eating to try to render yourself unattractive (the merits of this argument are moot because social discourse continues to reinforce the idea that fat = unattractive and non-sexual, and kids pick up those messages very early). I think, given Precious’ home environment and social community, it might be more unusual, and perhaps less authentic, if she were not a heavier person. I’m well aware of the fears of the mammy stereotype being perpetuated, but I think we have to balance our desire for more diverse images with the author’s need and right to present their characters as their most authentic, truthful, and revelatory selves.

  97. 9jah wrote:

    there was a movie to be made where the subject is the target of the most despicable horrors a child could imagine and was consequentially the embodiment of such suffering…and they made the parallel association: find the darkest, obese person you can get. And then of course, her abusive mother is yet another obese one. If this is lost on you, get a clue. Echoing certain posters above, this has nothing to do with obese rights or whatever. I would be perfectly happy with Gabourey Sidibe casting if she was in something random with her weight/complexion not used as a foil (implicit or not). For any to whom, it matters one freaking bit, I am neither skinny nor light. Can we bloddy damn happy black folks get our time in the spotlight???

    In terms of media representation, this is not a documentary – it is fiction, sensationalized as best fiction can be (as the author says a composite character). Of course this voice should be heard. I and certain others are simply saying other voices should be heard as well, considering the vast majority of people do not get raped by their parents, black, white, green or not!

    And let’s be frank in our assessment. An obese kid is not typical. In fact, it could be argued that this puts a false cloak of normalcy for what is a dangerous condition, with so many kids suffering from obesity. This movie is chock full of lousy steroetypes and me no like. plain, simple.

  98. Tori wrote:

    I’ve read some of the comments. I am so glad that PUSH was made into a movie. For those of us who have read the book, it came out with overwhelming praise, and I’ve met Sapphire several times and she describes Precious as a mix of many of the students she encountered when she was teaching in New York. She pointed that the ending reflects reality, that Precious triumphs because she finds her voice, she finds someone in her life that truly wants her to succeed, she understands what was done to her but most of all she finds a community of women to lean on. Read the book, read the criticism of the book and then I urge you to go out and read some of Sapphire’s poetry. Sapphire is writing about the people she encounters as she said at one of her readings, she writes about ‘the people that fall through the cracks of the system.” I want to also point out that the height of the book’s popularity Sapphire mentioned that the book was being used in classes for those students who were studying to be social workers. Since the plight of Precious Jones also comments on the breakdown of the social service system. PUSH does not revel in bleakness, it revels in personal triumph and functions the way fiction is supposed to, the main character is transformed, Precious is not the same person at the end of the book. Hopefully, the movie will reflect that.

  99. blip wrote:

    This film is definitely on! Thought you guys should see this:

    Lionsgate has acquired Sundance Film Festival winner “Push: Based on the Novel by Sapphire.” Oprah Winfrey and Tyler Perry will team up to help promote the film.
    Directed by Lee Daniels from an adapted script by Damien Paul, “Push” became only the third film in Sundance history to win the Grand Jury Prize and the Audience Awards in the U.S. Dramatic Competition last month. Film stars newcomer Gabourey “Gabby” Sidibe, Mo’Nique, Paula Patton, Mariah Carey and Lenny Kravitz.

    Project reteams Lionsgate and Daniels for the first time since “Monster’s Ball.”

    “Push” revolves around an overweight, illiterate African-American teen in Harlem who is about to give birth to her second child when she is accepted into an alternative school.

    “I’ve never seen anything like it. The moment I saw ‘Push: Based on the Novel by Sapphire,’ I knew I wanted to do whatever I could to encourage other people to see this movie. The film is so raw and powerful–it split me open,” Winfrey said.

    Winfrey and Perry will promote “Push” through their respective film companies, Harpo Films and 34th Street Films.

    Lionsgate prexy of acquisitions and co-productions Jason Constantine announced the deal.

    http://www.variety.com/index.asp?layout=festivals&jump=story&id=2470&articleid=VR1117999429&cs=1

  100. NancyP wrote:

    Obese kids may not be “normal”, but they will be soon. The incidence of pediatric type II diabetes (common adult type insulin-resistant genetics,weight, lack of exercise-related diabetes) is going through the roof. I am not into victim blaming, as the obstacles to quality food and outdoor exercise are real for poor urban people. However, childhood obesity is not solely a poor urban trend, it can be seen in rural areas without food shortage, wealthy suburbs, and it is seen *around the world*. The changes to processed foods and to more sedentary lifestyles/jobs are the culprits. People LOVE sugar, will eat seemingly unlimited amounts of corn syrup and cane sugar derivatives, and have become reliant on sodas either for pleasure or for a source of convenient reliably clean drinking fluid. Apparently the most diabetic country in the world is Mexico, with the double whammy of a significant genetic predisposition and a massive use of sodas.

  101. Evie wrote:

    “Preach it, browne. Studios don’t put out male-bashing films in which the characters are white and not one good white male can be found. But when its “minorities”? Oh, by all means bash all the men!”

    I have a problem with your terminology. Is it “male-bashing” to negatively depict male characters in some movies about non-white people , when sexual and/or physical violence at the hands of non-white men is a reality of life for many non-white women and girls?

    Sexual and physical violence at the hands of white men are realities of life for white women and girls also, and it is demonstrably untrue that white male characters are never presented negatively in movies.

    The problem is not that white men are never portrayed negatively where non-white men are always portrayed negatively, it’s that diversity of experience can not be achieved due to the paucity of films about POC.

  102. browne wrote:

    “I have a problem with your terminology. Is it “male-bashing” to negatively depict male characters in some movies about non-white people , when sexual and/or physical violence at the hands of non-white men is a reality of life for many non-white women and girls? ” Evie

    No I have no problem with non-white men being portrayed as violent, but I have a problem with the fact that if a black woman goes there with her poetry, fiction or screenplay she will be praised up and down. It’s an easy road to travel for a woman of color artist. It is also a well over traveled road.

    Now as a woman of color I’ve been around lots of men of color and guess what the vast majority of them aren’t satan. I know that’s amazing considering the movies and books that are out there, but Asian, black and latino men aren’t more sexist are evil than white men.

    I feel that men of color in films put out by women of color are overly portrayed as being evil. Women of color can’t get a movie or book funded unless we throw in some daddy rapist or boyfriend beating us or some other man that looks like us keeping us down. And that’s the problem I have.

    For women of color to be funded we have to play this stupid game and there are way too many women of color playing this silly game. It’s not even original anymore.

    And I”m not about the “positive” thing. I can write something that is not at all “positive,” but is still objective of all genders.

    Browne

  103. brownstocking wrote:

    Wow, am I the only one SMH and LOLing ruefully about Teh Oprah and Madea promoting this?

    I won’t wade in on every issue surrounding this film, but, TBH, those two are big red flags for me.

    Sapphire obviously strikes chords within academia and communities of color; she’s been the topic of a symposium. I’ll have to contemplate this further.

  104. Alienation wrote:

    “I am uncomfortable with the fact that so many people here are antagonistic simply to the idea of a movie about a fat Black woman”

    If you think this is “antagonistic”, you should see how America will respond if a conventionally attractive black woman was cast in a mainstream movie as “the ideal”.
    There are plenty of movies with “fat” black female characters.

    I don’t think we should succumb to the cheap thrill of a “different” sized woman. I think we should look at all aspects of the media and notice similar patterns. In America, the pattern is that black women are “Strong”, “fat”, “like to fight”, are “obnoxious”, and “sexual objects”. Each of these stereotypes make dehumanization and sexual/ exploitation on our behalf inevitable, and always have. There is not one “new” stereotype about black women untainted by archaism. We need to break down each stereotype and what “place” they have in mainstream culture and where they’ve come from.

    Just because someone likes to have sex, or a woman of color thinks sex is “empowering” doesn’t mean that she shouldn’t critique the stereotype of the over-sexed “black Jezebel”. Instead of caving in and stating that “she (like me) is empowering” the attention needs to be devoted to where she comes from, and why she ultimately needs to be put to rest. Anything else, borders on having a self-serving agenda.

    Precious, like many sexual abuse victims put on fat to create a body border. Fat serves as a protection against intruders. Women who do not have fathers also use fat as “protection” in addition to women who feel powerless. But that is not what the viewer will see. Nor was it discussed in the book. The viewer is not meant to “understand” the “Fat” black woman. They “pity” her, and also cherish her existence-because her existence is responsible for their own place as “the ideal”. Doesn’t this create a justification for why her humanity is worth less than theirs?

    Movies like Push that depict sexual abuse of black women, or movies that unearth the “tragedies” of fat black women actually encourages public apathy. The viewer does not empathize but instead learns “better them and not me”.

  105. ntamunoza wrote:

    after reading plenty of the comments posted above, i’ve come to the conclusion that some people are so blinded by their prejudice, they fail to see the enormous ways in which this character alone on film, in front of audiences is a direct confrontation to white supremacy and patriarchy.

    yes she is a she. black. fat. and dark skinned. he presence on screen demands the audience to listen to her struggle, and carve out a place/space for her right in the front and center as opposed to relegating her to the margins of society, seen but not heard. comforting but never comforted. used as a shoulder to cry on, without ever having a voice of her her own, concerns of her own, struggles of her own where she depends on others for support.

    yes there maybe stereotypes, and you may look at her and see “mammie” but mammie has a story to tell too. she’s lived a lifetime without anyone giving a care about the depths of her life, but instead, everyone looks at what she can do for them (entertain), or what she can’t (stay in the back and shut up).

    what would happen if people took the time to truly and honestly examine mammie’s life? wouldn’t her real life, as opposed to the caricature of a smiling always ready to please and comfort image that’s been carved out for her, be a direct confrontation on those two systems of oppression?

    it’s so clear to me. but not so much for others i guess.

  106. ntamunoza wrote:

    just to get some clarification…:

    @alienation – i think i am somewhat confused by something you’re saying. are you saying that if an “attractive” black woman had been cast in the role it would be a greater challenge to white supremacy? because, and i’m presuming here, the (assuming) white audience would be attracted to her or find her attractive, so that’s a challenge to white supremacy?

    regardless of why she is fat, or her state of health, do either of those things somehow invalidate her life story? or make it any less worth telling?

    i don’t know if her level of attractiveness to the audience really challenges white supremacy more than simply having a character (attractive or not) with layers and some depth. i’m not sure if there is a racialicius review of monster’s ball, but that’s a prime example of a movie (with disturbing topics) with an “attractive” female lead. would you argue that that female character served more of a challenge to white supremacy than this character?

    what if the roles were reversed?

  107. Kaonashi wrote:

    The part of the book that always stuck with me was when Precious said that she was fat, Black, and talked loud…yet she was invisible to most of the people around her. While they either pretended that she wasn’t there or talked at her (or about her), no one really saw HER.

    Ironic.

  108. Ike wrote:

    I wouldn’t have a problem with the film if it was in fact a true story. But since it is fiction, I worry about how others will interpret the story as the truth about the African-American community.

  109. Shazza wrote:

    Well this looks like GREAT news for ‘Push’-
    from eurweb.com

    *Oprah Winfrey and Tyler Perry will team with Lionsgate to help promote its newest film acquisition, “Push.”

    The Lee Daniels-directed film took the Grand Jury Prize and the Audience Award in U.S. Dramatic Competition at last month’s Sundance Film Festival. The story follows an overweight, illiterate African-American teen in Harlem who is about to give birth to her second child when she is accepted into an alternative school.

    “I’ve never seen anything like it. The moment I saw ‘Push: Based on the Novel by Sapphire,’ I knew I wanted to do whatever I could to encourage other people to see this movie. The film is so raw and powerful–it split me open,” said Winfrey, who will promote the movie through her company Harpo Films. Perry will promote via his shingle, “34th Street Films.”

  110. Tori wrote:

    Ike the story is based on Sapphire’s encounters with her students. Remember that art reflects life and sometimes especially with a story like PUSH it has to be told in fiction.

    I think Racialicious should interview Sapphire I think she teaches college in New York. I think if people read her feelings about Precious Jones, about the book, etc it would squash many of the comments about the way black women are portrayed. I think instead of dissecting this movie we should be excited that a book written by a black female has been brought to the screen and hopefully honors the book. As a writer, that would be amazing. For those who don’t like the portrayal of Precious. Write your own story, get your work out there. Sapphire did. Maybe you should too.

  111. pololly wrote:

    Alienation’s post is 100% correct. She articulates it so much better than I can so I will stick to examples. Here’s a parallel which is unfortunately all too true:

    Let’s have every black guy in a movie be a criminal. Even better – sell drugs. Every one. Sells Drugs. Happy?

    Guess what? Some black men do sell drugs. And just because they are drug dealers doesn’t mean they don’t have a complex, multi layered story to tell. They don’t deserve condemnation and disrespect. Just because they sell drugs doesn’t mean they live in ghetto and sell crack to kids – maybe some middle class high income black men sell cocaine to colleagues. Maybe a student sells a bit of weed to his friends. Hey, maybe the guy who sells crack to kids was sexually abused as a child and the friend who brought him into the drugs trade helped him escape from that abuse and get enough money to free his mother from it too.

    Hey and maybe there’s nothing wrong with any drug anyway. Alcohol kills more people, right? I’m sure that all the studies that show negative effects of drug use are puritan crap fabricated by Bush’s America. Let’s say you believe that there is absolutely nothing wrong with doing any drug at all. Most people who do drugs don’t live in a crummy ghetto do they?

    But you are saying you would have NO problem if EVERY BLACK MAN was a drug dealer. You wouldn’t question that. You’d say – let’s stop being so judgmental about drugs. You wouldn’t have a problem with it. Well I would an dI bet you would too.

    Now on one hand you’ve got something amazing like The Wire depicting drug trade and use but on the other you have every movie where the black guy is the petty crook/sidekick/link to urban music/clothes/crime.

    Now for women it is the fat black mammie. In every movie. On TV. Both ‘drug dealer’ and ‘fat’ are shorthand in our society for negative things – lazy, irresponsible, poor, whatever. I don’t understand why this is a) complicated or b) controversial.

    Now on one hand this movie may be The Wire. Great if it is. But that doesn’t mean we should generally cheer on an incredibly negative depiction of black women. And it doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t be critically engaged with films like this.

  112. pololly wrote:

    Oh! Just thought of another example – black women as maids.

    Plenty of black maids in real life. Nothing wrong with that. Now let’s move every black character in a movie to a position of subservience vis a vis the white characters. Still fun?

    Didn’t think so.

    Let’s be clear – black men can play superheroes, policemen and doctors but most black women (except the light skinned biracial ones) just play mammies. But that’s good. Because there’s nothing wrong with being fat. Yeah, I feel like the Fat Acceptance movement has a long way before it articulates a philosophy that most reasonable people can sign up to.

  113. Alienation wrote:

    “are you saying that if an “attractive” black woman had been cast in the role it would be a greater challenge to white supremacy?”

    What I said was pretty clear, no? The media loves to focus on overweight strong black women. Someone said it was about “diversity”, if it were, then we’d also see the same number of gorgeous dark skinned black female leads (that’s what I’m saying). I’m pointing out that we don’t see dark skinned black women (Halle is Biracial, firstly) in a role outside of “whore”, “bitch”, “strong” or “mammy” archetypes. There’s already plenty of representation in that department for each of the above.

    Yes, we should see more attractive dark skinned female leads, just as we should see more Asian men as leads in romance movies. But that wasn’t my point.

    For the record, if this were a movie about a black female stripper who smokes crack, I’d be saying the same thing. I wouldn’t say we should “be empowered by her story” or “try to understand her character”, I’d say it was typical.

    It’s funny that it was considered “Racist” for black men to be included as effeminate “Steppin Fetchit” or “shuck and jive” tap dancers before actors like Denzel and Will Smith now. But for me to imply, on the other hand, that black women deserve the same type of diversity or innovation in movies is “difficult for people to understand”.

    I find that interesting…

  114. Winn wrote:

    It is perplexing that in the midst of complaints about stereotypes and how this one character will be representative to a certain segment of the audience of all black women and all black experience, the very people criticizing this are themselves making Precious a stand-in for all black women, rather than a specific character within a narrative structure with an individual story. I am a mental health professional who has known many Precious Jones’. But I am also a writer and actress, and as a woman of colour I know better than most the narrow confines of publishing and marketing we are often restricted to in telling our stories. The concern about perpetuating stereotypes and the lack of diversity in black women’s representation is very real. But that doesn’t make this particular story and this particular character less valid or compelling, nor does it negate an audience’s right to negotiate the complexities of her presentation for themselves. Critique, by all means. But there is an undercurrent of shaming in some of the comments, implying that this story should never have been told, that it was some sort of cynical, pandering attempt to appeal to the lowest common perceptions about black men and black women. kaonashi pointed out the section in the novel “Push” in which Precious contemplates her own invisibility in the world around her, despite her size and dark skin. It seems that many of us would prefer to keep her invisible, not just because she symbolizes a damaging stereotype, but perhaps her story shines a light on some uncomfortable truths we as a community have a hard time facing.

  115. Alienation wrote:

    “the concern about perpetuating stereotypes and the lack of diversity in black women’s representation is very real. But that doesn’t make this particular story and this particular character less valid or compelling”

    I agree, but Hollywood and the movie genre as a whole is a collection of particular stories, and particular characters. At what point do we stop saying “lets accept this one particular example” to saying “this is an extremely disturbing ‘pattern’”?

    And I read the book. Has anyone else? It’s nothing but curse words, rape, and masochism. It’s not “The Bluest Eye” in any sense of the word, nor does the work analyze Precious in depth. Precious does not develop as a person, does not inspire the reader, and does not really grow as a character. So what exactly is the point?

  116. Alienation wrote:

    “Let’s be clear – black men can play superheroes, policemen and doctors but most black women (except the light skinned biracial ones) just play mammies. But that’s good. Because there’s nothing wrong with being fat. Yeah, I feel like the Fat Acceptance movement has a long way before it articulates a philosophy that most reasonable people can sign up to.”

    Pololly, I agree 100%!

  117. blip wrote:

    It’s clear fat black women are the most reviled people in the universe. So much so, even thinner black women have turned on them and want to reduce them to the same stereotypes everyone else does.

    Even when a film like PUSH serves to HUMANIZE one fat black woman’s journey, some want to reduce it to the latest tyler perry flick.

    I will never understand how one (doubly)marginalized group can so cavalierly turn on another that has it so much worse. And to be bold enough to say such ugly things about overweight black women when 70% of us are indeed overweight, is just baffling to me.

  118. Winn wrote:

    @blip,

    WORD!

  119. Alienation wrote:

    “So much so, even thinner black women have turned on them and want to reduce them to the same stereotypes everyone else does.”

    I’m sorry but this sounds so small-minded. I am not “thin”, or “fat”. I am, however, deeply committed to removing stereotypes of black women, and my size doesn’t matter. You are turning this into an issue of “fat” and “thin” and pitting women against each other. I’m talking about how black women are overly depicted on tv.

    Most white women are not thin either. We live in America, and the average woman is nothing but that. But I simply WILL NOT endorse, support, or defend racist images of black women on TV, whether the woman “looks like me” or not. It’s not about “attractiveness” or weight either. I despise hip hop video’s because of how black women are depicted in them. Last I checked, these women were not “fat”.

    Perhaps you should READ the book. It’s a book about graphic rape depictions. Highlights such as:

    -Precious frequently goes to school with sperm on her dress.

    -She’s mentally handicap and she refers to her child as “my lil slanty eyed retarded baby”.

    -Her father constantly verbally abuses her “u big b*tch, u can handle dis daddy’s big d*ck”, is the typical language used in the book.

    -She fantasizes about being white while she’s brutally raped on several occasions.

    -She eventually dies of AIDS with no redemption. There is no analyzable moment her or her character. It’s an entirely “tragic” novel with no redemption.

    Why would the movie industry be ok with this book transferring to the big screen when there are so many prolific and intelligent novels by black female writers?Hmmm.

    This graphic and disturbing DEPICTION is BIGGER than ME and YOU. ..

  120. Free wrote:

    @ Tori – I think Racialicious should interview Sapphire I think she teaches college in New York.

    This is a great idea Latoya. I’ve searched for an interview of or comments by Sapphire on the movie and found nothing.

    Thanks for the links.

  121. Winn wrote:

    “Perhaps you should READ the book.”

    This may come as an enormous surprise, but it is possible for someone to have read this book and cultivate a different opinion of the central character’s arc and the book’s overall literary merit that is different from yours. A pedantic tone doesn’t make anyone more likely to agree with you. The fact that we are free to have differences of opinion only buttresses the need for this film to enter the marketplace and audiences to decide for themselves the quality of the production and the cultural impact of the images depicted. I certainly don’t want some self-appointed cultural arbiter determining for me what uplifts or demeans the collective, and assuming their powers of discernment are greater than mine because they disapprove of a particular work that I may feel should at least have a fair chance in the marketplace of ideas. In your comments, there’s a strong air of “you should know better and agree with me, and if you don’t, I’ll assume you agree with and countenance racist and sexist portrayals of black women”. OK. But your implication doesn’t make it so.

  122. coco wrote:

    …there are even other types of depictions by this author…

    “Sassafras, Cypres and Indigo” is a great story about 3 sistas from the south, and their lifes, loves and growth into women.

    Its chock full of cultural detail about life in South Carolina. Its follows them into womanhood as they start making hard choices for themselves and becoming who they are… blah blah blah…

    but nope, I won’t get to see that movie this spring — they used that black female movie producing energy to make Push.

    well, okay then.

  123. coco wrote:

    i’m confused, I’m thinking of Ntozake Shange. still a great novel though…

  124. Alienation wrote:

    “A pedantic tone doesn’t make anyone more likely to agree with you. ”

    Nope, certainly not. But generally when two people have a debate, the person either matches with a persuasive argument or concedes. I just gave you mine. What have you done besides tried to insult the way I debate? I’m sorry, but I’m not going to bow down to someone’s emotions when I feel that the issue is bigger than the character.

    Since you (supposedly) read the book, what did you feel was positive about it? I’ve made several long lists about what was negative. thx

  125. Dane wrote:

    The book overall ended on a positive note. The story arc did allow for the character to develop, to find the words to tell her own story, and to become a real person in he r own eyes instead of being under the control of her mother and others that had hurt her and destroyed her sense of self. It wasn’t a rainbows and butterflies ending, and it is a difficult read but I wouldn’t go so far as to say that there was no story arc or character development.

  126. pololly wrote:

    >I will never understand how one (doubly)marginalized group can so cavalierly turn on another that has it so much worse. And to be bold enough to say such ugly things about overweight black women when 70% of us are indeed overweight, is just baffling to me.<

    Sure, now step over to the ‘She’s just not that into you’ thread and defend that movie please. I mean on the basis of your argument, the fact that the movie is full of skinny white people finding love juxtaposed with a few ‘fat black and sassy’ women thrown in on the side is not a problem at all. We should celebrate the ‘movie’s diversity!? And by questioning that we are turning on our own, right?

    This is ridiculous. You are all acting like there are only thin black characters in movies and somehow it is because the ‘community’ with our ’shame’ has been ‘hiding it’. What planet are you all on? Every movie, every TV show, most TV adverts, most rap videos, most news programmes – that god awful ‘Black Women In America’ on CNN – all show ‘thick’ to ‘obese’ sized women. Who is hiding and shaming anyone? This is not ‘one woman’s story’, it’s every woman’s story. Every black woman is portrayed in this way. That wouldn’t be a problem except they are still being portrayed as different and less than. On one hand they are sensitively portrayed as ugly and rape victims and on the other they are played for laughs – sassy, strong, fingersnapping sistas!

    Look I understand your point to a degree. An earlier poster said there was a shaming element to these responses. By this I assume she meant that by even saying ‘I don’t want to be represented by fat black women’, you are implying that there is is something wrong in being a fat black woman. And that we should all be supporting each other not making each other feel bad.

    I’m sorry but this can’t be helped. I think it’s a viable goal to have a black woman in a film just be, instead of a human conductor for misery or worse.

    I guess this is why intersectionality can only take you so far. I would rather see a variety of black women on screen because I feel that that is a better representation of the reality of the black female experience. You feel like even taking one fat black person off a screen is denying the opportunity to represent and push for fat acceptance. I guess when it comes down to it I choose to honor my black identity. I’m not sure how carrying a couple of extra pounds is supposed to take precedence over the black and African heritage which has nurtured and sustained me but whatever works for you I guess. I mean I went out to get a paper today and someone slowed down their car to shout out and call me a n*gga. Maybe I should move to where you live and it’s all perfectly equal. Then I’d have time to build a movement around being chunky.

    Oh, and 70% of us are overweight, right? I’m starting the Society to Increase the Number of Out of Wedlock Births by a Black Character in a Movie. Please join SINOWBBCM. I figure since 70% of black children are born out of wedlock no matter what movie no matter what the context I want the black characters not to be married and have kids. Gonna also start the Society to Show More Black Men in Jail On Screen and the Society to Show More Black Characters Dropping Out of College In Movies. The Society to Show More Black Characters Using Drugs. The Society For The Promotion of Black Promiscuity On Screen. The Society For The Promotion of Representations of Black Men Committing Crimes. The Society to Increase The Representation of Black People as Homeless People, Menial Laborers, Street Harassers In Movies.

    Just to be equal opps about it: any East Asian has to have a maths book glued to his/her hand, all the South Asian people are doctors and all the white people have their hair dyed blond? Fair?

    Anyone up to sign a petition?

  127. Dane wrote:

    This thread is getting very intense.

  128. Winn wrote:

    “But generally when two people have a debate, the person either matches with a persuasive argument or concedes.”

    I was unaware a debate was being engaged in. All I have seen is an attempt to bully those who disagree with your perspective into “conceding”. And it is entirely your subjective opinion that your argument is “persuasive”. Obviously, several other commenters here have not found it so. It is amusing that you insist you will not bow down to someone’s else’s “emotions”, the implication being that everyone who disagrees with you is arguing from an emotional standpoint rather than having anything substantive to say. Pedantry neither asks for nor deserves an engaged and cogent response, because that is not the purpose of a pedantic argument.

    “Since you (supposedly) read the book, what did you feel was positive about it? I’ve made several long lists about what was negative. thx”

    I love the insertion of that “supposedly”. Is that your idea of engaging in debate? Try a little harder next time. You certainly have made several long lists about what you viewed as negative in the novel. And I clearly articulated my opinions about the specific characterization choices made by the author in post #96, as well as the irony of advocating for the invisibility of a character constructed to rail against that very invisibility and dismissal in post #114. But, because it appears to have been missed, let me reiterate that my posts have not been specifically about defending the quality of “Push” as a novel or a film (especially since no one here has yet seen the screen adaptation). It is about defending the author’s and filmmakers rights to make artistic choices in service of their chosen narrative, and the right of those who find that narrative or their characterization decisions problematic to both critique that work and to opt out of viewing or purchasing said work if they so choose. It is about my discomfort not with criticizing the way certain stories are told, but the implication that they should not be told at all, and that people who find merit in those stories are somehow lacking in pride or solidarity with the community. I don’t need a self-appointed cultural arbiter to tell me what perspectives or artistic works I should find valid or invalid, and I certainly don’t need it from someone whose argument, at base is, “If you find any merit in what I think is crap, then I care more about the black community, especially black women, than you do”. Not a persuasive argument, sorry.

    @ pololly

    “An earlier poster said there was a shaming element to these responses. By this I assume she meant that by even saying ‘I don’t want to be represented by fat black women’, you are implying that there is is something wrong in being a fat black woman. And that we should all be supporting each other not making each other feel bad.”

    You are referring to my post, but your assumption about my meaning is incorrect. If you read the entire post, my meaning is quite clear. I in no way made an argument as reductive and silly as “we should all be supporting each other not making each other feel bad”. But if this is what these arguments boil down to for you, then so be it. You and Alienation can just take comfort in the belief that you are right and anyone who has a different opinion is wrong, and leave it at that.

  129. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    ************MOD NOTE*******************

    And with that, I am closing this thread to any further comments. The conversation has officially worn itself out.

  130. Adrianna wrote:

    Not everyone gets second chances .How many people have died in hopeless situations. ( slaves, genocide.) it is life and sometimes it is bleak. The novel is very real to life. It’s like Gogobooty said about the story about the Swiss woman this is happening in real life! 2 more cases came to light in Switzerland again.( saw it on Euro news. ) Now we are 6 billion on the planet imagine all the little girls and boy who are suffering this kind of abuse in silence it has nothing to do with race, but abuse , and some “parents” just being monsters. I remember in my behavioral science class our teacher told us that being in a family was one of the most dangerous places for a child. Abuse usually comes at the hands of someone you know. It ’s not always the stranger in the dark , but some members
    of our families who commit the most monstrous acts against us. Coming back to Haiti has thought me that life is all about luck. As a young Haitian woman I lucked out ,because I was born to privilege. I walk the streets and spot the “ Rest Avek” ( Slave children of Haiti) and wonder Who is going to help them get out of this atrocious situation. ( the children are sold by their parents and other extended family members) They are the invisible children of this country. People know yet do nothing. It is heartbreaking and it enrages me that we don’t have a competent government to look out for these children. Push maybe fiction , but sometimes reality is much bleaker. I’m using my media skill to highlight the issue. Alas it is not enough not for me. I feel so powerless in the face of such a huge societal problem. It keeps me up at night.

    @Texas cowgirl and @blip Well said !!

    If anything living in a all black country has thought me it’s not about race. It’s about children being abused! It’s not about demonizing black men. They are good and evil men and all the races ! In the case of the Switzerland the Rapist father is white!
    You really need to stop seeing it to the prism of what white people will think ! This is Human issue not Black, White , Latino, Asian ,Native.

    It is frustrating that people feels this way and I remember a post here about sexual harassment and how the author did want to report the offender after he almost got violent with her, because he was black like her and too many black males in jail. So the idea is Black women who suffer abuse at the hand of some black male should shut up and not put abusive bastard in Jail, because they are black like you.. Where is the logic in that? I think it would be helpful for some to live in a all black country to see that the logic doesn’t hold up, cause here there is no white man keeping us down. Why should the race of abusers be relevant !